Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Second sitting) Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateDepartment: Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities
Matthew Pennycook
Main Page: Matthew Pennycook (Labour - Greenwich and Woolwich)Department Debates - View all Matthew Pennycook's debates with the Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities
Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Second sitting)
Matthew Pennycook ExcerptsTuesday 21st June 2022
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 21 June 2022 - (21 Jun 2022)
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
Q
Eamonn Boylan: One thing in the Bill that we very much welcome the principle of is the notion that the infrastructure levy is effectively extracted once value has been created. That will make it much easier to calculate an appropriate levy, particularly on a complex, multifaceted scheme.
The issue for us would be, if the income from the levy is delayed until after development has been completed, what are the arrangements that enable me to fund the infrastructure up front? That is needed to enable the development to take place in the first instance. It would need to be linked to the availability of things like the brownfield land release fund or, potentially, borrowing powers to enable us to invest in the infrastructure on the basis of a levy replenishing the borrowing at a later date. The principle is a good one, and I am sure it will be welcomed in the development community, but we need to find a way of making certain that it does not work in a way that prevents us delivering infrastructure in a timely way to enable schemes to come forward.
Laura Shoaf: I reiterate that there is still a lot to unpack and still a lot to understand about what it will mean in practice. We keep coming back to certainty and simplicity being the two things that really help enable us to get big, new-generation projects off the ground. I reiterate Eamonn’s point: anything that can be leveraged into some sort of pump priming to help to give both certainty and consistency would be genuinely very welcome.
Joanne Roney: I would just add that generally, across the UK, we are supportive of the infrastructure levy being non-negotiable, which is a strong statement to make, and of it being determined at a local level, which will take in those regional differences that Eamonn and I mentioned earlier—the viability in different places. There is a lot to welcome in this, but the detail needs to be worked through.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Eamonn Boylan: I will not pretend to you, sir, that I can have absolute confidence that we will avoid disputes over valuation. We have it at the start of projects now and we have had it at different stages. It will be essential to have established prior to the signing of formal agreement with the developer or developers that we have an agreement on the valuation methodology to be used at the point at which the levy is to be calculated—to try to remove some of that risk. That is certainly what we would hope.
Joanne Roney: I think the move to viability assessments increasingly being made public to planning committees helps to bring transparency and clarity to value early on in the discussions, as part of the planning process. We would want to build on that, so that we try to avoid those arguments. I am sure they will be there, but it is how they get resolved.
The Chair
As there are no further questions, I thank the witnesses for their evidence. We will move to the next panel: we have two witnesses virtually and two present in the room. If Members wish to remove their jackets, please feel free to do so.
Examination of Witnesses
Professor Graeme Atherton, Rich Bell, Sacha Bedding and Dr Parth Patel gave evidence.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Rich Bell: I think we certainly agree with the comments that were made by many Members on Second Reading about the seeming primacy of the national management policy and the way in which the Bill seems to grant the Secretary of State the power effectively to overrule local communities. That does not seem to be in the spirit of the levelling-up agenda as we understand it.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Sacha Bedding: Only to say that the consequence of that would be more disillusionment, and it needs rectifying. If people are really to have a sense of agency and ownership of their own place and feel that it has been levelled up, they need to feel that they have the power to stop that happening. That needs teasing out in a thoughtful way, so that those powers that we hope will pass down to communities are enshrined and do not depend on the largesse of other people in more significant positions of power.
Matthew Pennycook
To clarify, Chair, will we not be able to get the other witnesses in?
The Chair
It is looking iffy at the moment. If they do not appear, we can have a brief discussion about how to address it at the end of the sitting.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Cllr Chapman-Allen: There are two parts to that question. One is that, across the whole of the country, regardless of which tier of government deals with planning, we have a shortage of planning officers. That, sadly, is the nature of the beast, with their desire to work in the private sector, where incomes will be greater.
For us in district councils, for those who have not got a rural locality basis—that ability for residents to interact with their council—through poor broadband provision, I think the proposals for digitalisation for planning is the real positive. As for how district councils will operate that, we are already in the vanguard of that AI—artificial intelligence—and how we interact with our residents on digitalisation.
The trial that has already taken place across the country has been really successful. Both we and the Department have learnt a great deal from it. As long as the outlay, with some capital support, is forthcoming in the Bill, to ensure that we are able to uplift our software and our hardware, I think it should be a seamless transition. However, we have to ensure that we build that into our capital programmes and into the activity of our staff, so that we can deliver it and, in turn, train up how our council officers operate and, more importantly, ensure that the public understand how they begin to interact and use that new digital service.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Cllr Chapman-Allen: There will be legacy licences for some existing software. They will have a lag time to run out or, depending on the Government’s position on this, if there is a hard reset date, there will be a revenue cost to the authority. That needs to be picked up as it moves forward. However, I do not think that it will be a challenge, because the uniformity for residents on planning—in particularly for developers and individuals applying with planning applications—will allow the smooth understanding of how to interact with their local planning service.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Cllr Chapman-Allen: I am not completely sighted on that clause, but in the wider sense of the LGA and DCN’s position on the proposed rules moving forward, this must be a bottom-up approach. As we have said time and again, in order for growth to take place, communities have to see the benefit realisation, whatever that is, whether for infrastructure, design or the specification of units we are building. As long as residents see the benefit to their communities, the policies that are forthcoming to date are in line with what we were expecting; with what we asked for back in the planning consultation in August 2020. That said, there will be nuances in every location across the country that will sit outside the NPPF, in which local planning policies from local plans must have that flexibility to support local needs and desires, and therefore those sorts of outputs.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Cllr Chapman-Allen: I do not necessarily think this is a position around culture and morale. Being a planning officer is one of those specialist trades in a district council, no different from an environmental health officer or a health and safety officer. It takes years to get to the standard required to undertake that duty and that requirement.
The challenge we face is that framework and that position, and the fact that we are competing with the private sector. So, particularly for those districts that surround the M25, it is immensely easy for those planning officers to transit in between and to commute into London. For those districts that are in rural locations, some of those challenges on connectivity, and on access to health and education, make it a career choice sometimes for people as to whether they want to reside in those locations.
Of course, the new agile lifestyle post covid presents some further opportunities, but it once again comes down to pounds, shillings and pence. We are stuck between a rock and a hard place. We can always pay more for planning officers, but sadly we are not able to get 100% cost recovery on planning applications. So, in response to your question, we could go further to ensure that district councils and others that deal with planning matters could get 100% cost recovery and therefore pay a higher value for those planning officers to deliver that service.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Cllr Chapman-Allen: Yes, there is, but I will put back on the health warning that with planning the clue is in the name—we need to make sure that we are planning for our communities for the next 10, 15, 20 or 30 years, and not being reactive. Also, this cannot be a top-down exercise for what we are trying to achieve. Every one of our locations, in our communities and in your constituencies, has its unique beauty, its unique opportunities and its unique challenges. Therefore, those local plans must be derived locally. As much as the national planning policy framework sits at a national level as the umbrella, I do not think it should necessarily dictate completely how we deliver planning locally for us.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Cllr Jamieson: The key thing is that we are all immensely supportive of digitisation; it is the way to go. We do not want paper. In fact, one of the things that we saw during covid was that a number of local authorities moved to remote working and digitisation anyway, which made the process so much easier.
This is something that we are supportive of. I think Sam is right that we need clear guidelines, the relevant capital support and clear technical things, such as, “How will the system work?” and “What are the data protocols?”, because we want a very clear system that works for everyone. As ever, I think we are all slightly nervous about big IT projects, but this should work, with proper engagement with local government to ensure that we do it in the right way.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Cllr Oliver: Yes, I agree with both James and Sam. Obviously, planning is largely in the remit of the district and borough councils. In an ideal world, I would hope to see some sort of spatial development strategy, or the ability to create that. The duty to co-operate has not worked particularly well, and, where we are creating CCAs and county deals, it would be very helpful for there to be some input, at least, from a county-wide perspective. In terms of the digitalisation, I would leave that to the other two and I agree with what they said.
Tim Farron
Q
If we take it as a given that, particularly in the rural communities that many district councils serve, there is a collapse of the private rented sector into the Airbnb sector and a massive growth in second home ownership at the expense of permanent occupied dwellings, do you think that this Bill gives you any additional powers that help you to push back against that? What additional powers would you like?
Cllr Chapman-Allen: The relaxation for local authorities to tax second homes for council tax purposes had a really positive impact. We are seeing that across those communities in which second home ownership is immensely high. For communities such as yours, Tim, that Airbnb community is a challenge. First, it removes those rental properties from the market for long-term tenants. Secondly, it creates a really fluid community, and sometimes there are risks of antisocial behaviour related to that. There could be more strengthening for those local authorities to place conditions on new builds and new properties to ensure that the type of mix and tenure, and/or usage around holiday homes and/or Airbnbs, could be strengthened.
That said, we have the existing legacy problems for coastal communities, market towns and cathedral cities already. I would not necessarily want to suggest that we change that through this Bill now. We need to ensure that we are working with those landlords positively, as with housing providers and housing legislators, to ensure that they understand the challenges they face, but more importantly, the challenges that the communities face.
We have a long way to go. Over the last 12 months, there has been a lot of change for landlords. Sadly some of those have now vacated the market because of the changes in regulations, and policies required of them. We must ensure that we have a suitable housing mix across the country, and those who want to and do rent have an important part to play. Therefore, landlords have an important part to play in that process. I would not necessarily want to over-regulate so that landlords no longer want to operate in that market. However, there is a challenge around Airbnb and there is further work we can do to support the Government in implementing some legislation on that.
Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Third sitting) Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateDepartment: Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities
Matthew Pennycook
Main Page: Matthew Pennycook (Labour - Greenwich and Woolwich)Department Debates - View all Matthew Pennycook's debates with the Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities
Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Third sitting)
Matthew Pennycook ExcerptsThursday 23rd June 2022
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 23 June 2022 - (23 Jun 2022)
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
Q
Victoria Hills: We think the intention to streamline local plans and take some of the bureaucracy out of them is something to be welcomed. We support that. At the moment, it is not clear to what extent the policies are going to be nationalised or not. We know the intention is there, but if you take an average local plan, we do not know—because we have not seen the detail yet—whether, for example, 10%, 50% or 80% of local policies will be effectively nationalised in this way.
In addition to the streamlining—as I say, we are not against the streamlining; if there is an opportunity to streamline, we support that—one of the areas of interest to us is the extent to which the community and, indeed, both Houses of Parliament will be involved in any consultation on these policies, which are very important policies. If they are to be pulled out of the local plans and put into a national framework, we think it is really important that an element of consultation and engagement, both with the community and across both Houses, is included in that. That is not in the Bill as currently drafted, and we think it is important.
I cannot answer the question exactly, because we have not seen the detail as to what proportion of local policies are going to be nationalised. If it were to be a significant proportion, we would be making the case even more for local consultation, engagement, and involvement of both Houses.
David Jackson: I entirely support what Victoria has said. There are some significant prizes to be won if we can streamline the process: speeding up decision making, adding certainty for investors and communities alike, and, through that process, building the prosperity and the flourishing communities that the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill anticipates. But it is in the nature of the planning system and the complex legislative framework that it sits within that there are also downside risks. Victoria has identified those in terms of perhaps less room for discussion and negotiation. I would also put in there the risk of reduced flexibility—we might come on to that under another topic.
The other downside risk I would identify is the inevitable disruption as we go through the transition from the old system to the new system. Indeed, we will see some examples of that, so I think there are some downside risks. Again, I agree with Victoria that we have not seen the detail yet to be specific about the nature of those downside risks in their totality.
Tony Mulhall: I would like to add to that. We take soundings from our members around the country quite regularly. The sense I get is that members would like to see settled national policy and standards incorporated into these national development management policies, so that the same issues do not keep arising and being reconsidered. It is administratively efficient to do it this way, but it is also in line with the levelling-up agenda, where agreed standards and policies should apply to all areas. Many of the issues that are arising to do with climate change apply across the country. It also avoids the criticism that high planning and development standards can only be had in high-value locations.
In that regard, I refer back to a piece of work that we did called “Placemaking and value”, where we looked at exemplar places in the south-east of England. The criticism that we got about that was that a lot of people in the north of England said, “That would not be possible here because we do not have those land values.” It is very important that when we set national development management policies, we recognise what it is we are doing. We are ensuring that the standards apply to all areas and that all areas get the benefit of these standards.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Victoria Hills: I think that any further delay to where we are currently—reminding ourselves that this process of the White Paper initially started back in 2020—is something to be avoided, because it creates uncertainty not only for those preparing local plans, but for those who want to bring forward proposals. We would urge that any changes, including the NPPF, come forward quickly—as soon as possible—to get shot of that uncertainty. It is really important. We have seen the slowdown of local plans already. You will be aware that only somewhere in the region of 60% of local authorities have an up-to-date local plan. There are some really important aspects in the NPPF that we think need to be improved, not least adding in the climate change legal requirement and putting a greater emphasis on that. We would like to see that expedited, and I think that any further delay is not going to be helpful.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
David Jackson: Very briefly, I think that is absolutely right. The Government are now referring to this as a prospectus of changes, multi-level—[Inaudible.] I think in those circumstances, we risk delay. Each component is a crucial part of the overall system. I referred earlier to the complex legislative framework within which planning sits, and it all comes together as a unified process. Any missing component or uncertainty risks being a drag anchor, if I can use that phrase, on the whole system, so we want to see these issues addressed as urgently as possible. Again, we are seeing local planning authorities withdrawing their local plans because of this uncertainty. Given the costs of preparing them, authorities do not particularly want to have to do the process twice. Equally, given the costs that our clients are putting into the local planning process and their commitment to it, any delay is hugely unhelpful.
Tony Mulhall: I would like to add to that. I am particularly watching this in relation to the infrastructure levy, the implementation of which seems to be quite a long way down the line. The delivery of effective infrastructure is such a critical part of the system, so it would be useful to have a clear picture of the timeframe for implementation, given that there is quite a lengthy testing period associated with that as well.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
It strikes me that the levy is not that dissimilar to the current set-up of the community infrastructure levy. Do you think that is fair? If not, what advantage, if any, do you think the levy will provide over the current system? How do you see it operating in practice on complex brownfield sites? Given the ability to vary rates—in the sense that the Government are proposing a new metric for end-use value, not a new flat rate—what will that do for levelling up? Will local authorities in areas with low land value not just set low levy rates that do not afford much public gain?
Tony Mulhall: Yes, that is a concern we have expressed all along. For the last three or four years, we have expressed the view that a concept of land value capture as a way of funding your infrastructure is not adequate in itself. There are lots of areas where there will not be value to be captured, and we would like to see where the funding is for essential pieces of infrastructure.
One of the interesting aspects of the Bill is that the Secretary of State can intervene if they feel that the levy was set too high and will impact on viability. I think something like that should be directly connected to the alternative infrastructure source for that particular area. The funding for the infrastructure needs to be pointed out by the Secretary of State if they decide to reduce the levy. Quite a lot of small areas of the construction and design of the levy really need to be resolved fully. I know there is a consultation coming, but those details will be very important.
One of the main objectives is to capture additional land value, but also to avoid the contentious area of viability being contested at so many different stages in the process. We are very happy to help the Department to devise a system that will be easy to apply. Being easy to apply means that the metrics being used are easily discoverable and not contentious. That is a fundamental part of an efficiently operating taxation system, which is how this is described. What we are dealing with here is not an assessment of viability for planning purposes; these are valuations for taxation purposes.
You asked about two other issues—one was complex brownfield sites. It is quite understandable that the Government would look for a measure to deal with this subject, and I think something like the section 106 agreements will be the natural fall-back position here. Officials often say that it is amazing how derided these measures are until you try to remove them, but there is a logical reason for using a section 106 agreement on complex sites because the developer is in the best position to phase and programme the necessary infrastructure. The question then will be how this is to be set off against the liabilities that would have accrued under the infrastructure levy. Varying the rate is an important aspect as well, and I think it should be retained.
This is quite a complex proposal, and it sounds as if it is intended to be rolled out in phases, to make sure that lessons are learned in operation, as they had to be for the CIL measures. The real question is: will this be the replacement of one complex system by another complex system that we will have to learn and run simultaneously, because there will be a transition period? There is quite a lot to be resolved with regard to the infrastructure levy and we are quite happy to contribute to resolving it, to make it work better.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
The Chair
David, could I ask you to face the microphone please? The sound quality in your last answer was not good, and if you face the microphone, Members may be able to hear your evidence better. Thank you.
David Jackson: I beg your pardon. I think what Tony has said is correct. There is uncertainty around this new system. Fundamentally, it is one tax being replaced by another form of tax. The benefit of the new system is that it is charged on development value. That is a clearer metric than the rather complex viability assessments that led the CIL process, which was front-loaded in that respect and did not take account of changing market conditions, whether up or down. Clearly, there is a benefit in that simplification of the process based on value.
It is welcome that there is flexibility or variability in the system to take account of different circumstances. Complex brownfield sites are clearly very different from greenfield sites, as the question rightly identifies. The most important thing is that new development, new growth and new investment is facilitated rather than obstructed by the system, because none of those good things can come unless development and growth is facilitated. That is beneficial, whether it is by way of taxation, the CIL, the new infrastructure levy or, indeed, the investment that is brought forward through section 106. We started off with some uncertainty around the future of section 106, and one of the most welcome aspects of the legislation is that section 106 is being retained. It gives both developers and the community certainty about when that new infrastructure—whether it be social, physical or other infrastructure—is to be provided.
One area where there is less certainty, so far as we can see at the moment, is where the infrastructure levy is going to be spent. Previously, under the CIL system, we had regulation 123, which set out local authority priorities for investment and how money should be spent. The emphasis in discussions to date has been on affordable housing, but is this investment going to be directed towards other locally set measures? I think there needs to be transparency in relation to that.
Finally, I agree with Tony’s point about the need for road testing. This is complex new regulation. It needs to be road tested by way of pilot schemes before we invite local authorities across the country to invest resources into this complex process.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Jonathan Owen: As I said, we are strongly supportive of a plan-led system, and we are concerned that those national development management policies might well take primacy over neighbourhood plans and cause difficulties. We would like to see the Bill amended so that they do not have primacy over those other local deals. I also think there should be consideration to make sure that if those national policies are changed, it does not require an immediate updating of a neighbourhood or local plan. I think there is a risk that we will have waves of new national plans that will then set aside some of the local policies.
Tony Burton: I agree with that. [Inaudible.] There is merit in setting out at a national level those policies that are appropriate to be expressed at a national level: policies that are universally applicable and set the framework within which other things happen. We see completely unnecessary repetition, rewording, obfuscation and a lack of clarity when they are carried forward through development plans and some neighbourhood plans.
The risk is that national policies stray too far into matters that are much better decided at the local or neighbourhood level. There will always be a very strong temptation for Whitehall to overstep the mark, as history shows. We think that there need to be clear measures that prescribe and limit the national development management policies to those things for which they are appropriate and which do not fetter the nuance and local understanding that is brought at local and neighbourhood level.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Tony Burton: Yes, indeed. We don’t necessarily think that they are sufficient on the NPSs or indeed the national planning policy framework, so it is not just about equivalence. That could all be significantly improved to a much more citizen and community-led insight into how these policies are being drawn up.
Jonathan Owen: As for the first tier of local government, I think that the more engagement and consultation, the better. So yes, I think that is something that should be looked at.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
“in accordance with the development plan and any national development management policies, unless material considerations strongly indicate otherwise.”
Is that language sufficiently clear to be easily understood by councils?
Tony Burton: May I digress briefly? This is a personal question, because over 30 years ago, in a different campaigning role, I was responsible for drafting all the amendments to what became the Planning and Compensation Act 1991, which includes the provisions that clause 83 now seeks to change. At that time, we went through about a dozen variations of how to express on the face of the Bill what we were seeking to achieve. Sir George Young was the Minister responsible and was seeking a plan-led system. We even tried “strongly” at the time and, if my memory serves me right, it was rejected by Parliament’s legal experts. So although the language is clunky—it is legalistic—it has a 30-year track record. The insertion of a single word is a helpful expression of a more plan-led approach. It might be more helpful to go down that route than it would be to develop an entirely different set of wording, which would then trigger a whole new set of case law having to be established. In terms of the pragmatic achievement of what we are trying to do here—to strengthen a plan-led approach—the pragmatic approach, as suggested in the Bill, is reasonable.
Jonathan Owen: I agree with Tony. Adding “strongly” is helpful.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Tony Burton: Again, it is the same point that we have made throughout. You cannot, on the one hand, have a Bill that has written through it political rhetoric about communities having more insight and influence, being less done to, and strengthening the role in local planning, but on the other hand have critical documents prepared by other parts of the system being drawn up without the benefit of the insight that those communities that will be involved in other ways can bring. Providing those legal safeguards is an essential process, in our view, and that needs to be more than six weeks of a PDF being on a website; it needs to be something that requires positive interaction being secured with those who are going to be interested and engaged in it.
Jonathan Owen: There is some helpful evidence from the neighbourhood planning process. Where communities have been engaged and have inputted effectively to the development of neighbourhood plans, they have understood the reasons for some of the development pressures and other things. Actually, where there are neighbourhood plans, additional housing to that anticipated in the local plan has often been put in place. Engagement and full consultation, as Tony suggested, is sensible.
Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Fourth sitting) Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateDepartment: Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities
Matthew Pennycook
Main Page: Matthew Pennycook (Labour - Greenwich and Woolwich)Department Debates - View all Matthew Pennycook's debates with the Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities
Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Fourth sitting)
Matthew Pennycook ExcerptsThursday 23rd June 2022
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 23 June 2022 - (23 Jun 2022)
The Chair
Thank you. The witnesses can expect questions from Ministers because the object of this Committee is to gather evidence to influence our detailed consideration of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
Q
Dr Benwell: It is definitely not a missed opportunity yet, because we are only at the start of the process. I would say it is a huge opportunity to tackle two important environmental problems associated with planning and levelling up.
The first of these is environmental inequality. We think of the levelling-up agenda as being about economic inequality, but we live in a country of really deep environmental inequality. We have probably all heard the statistic that there are 40,000 premature deaths a year from air pollution, but it can vary street by street, let alone town by town. It goes deeper than that, because there is environmental inequality in things like access to natural green space, which has been brought to the fore over the past couple of years when so many people have depended on it. Those inequalities are, again, really deep. People from the lowest socioeconomic backgrounds are nine times less likely to have access to high-quality natural green spaces, which is hugely important for our physical and mental health. People from ethnic minority backgrounds are twice as likely to live in places that are bereft of access to natural green space.
At a wider level, there are deeper environmental inequalities still. Think, for example, of folk living in areas where degraded uplands mean that water flows more quickly over surfaces, flooding homes and businesses. Think of the same in urban areas, where densification and the use of impermeable surfaces is increasing flood risk and other environmental risks. There are huge levelling-up aspects to environmental inequality, which this Bill is an opportunity to fix.
Secondly, the planning system can help us environmentally through its impact on nature. We know that more than 40% of species are in long-term decline, and 15% of species here in Great Britain are at risk of extinction. The last “State of Nature” report made it clear that planning and unsustainable development play a big role in that. The Bill is a chance to make sure that, in future, the planning system is not imbalanced as it so often has been in the past when it focused on things like housing numbers alone. We need to balance that with the need for spatial planning and careful development that contributes to nature’s recovery. At the moment though, those opportunities have not been realised. On the contrary, some provisions in the Bill will do quite the opposite and bring in new environmental risks.
I will quickly address how to grasp those opportunities. It would be excellent if, among the levelling-up missions set in clause 1, you included access to a healthy natural environment. I was really surprised to see that the levelling-up White Paper’s list of capitals included human capital, financial capital, intellectual capital and social capital but not natural capital. Not to list environmental capital as one of those fundamental assets reflects a 1980s philosophy, really. So we should have access to a good-quality natural environment as a levelling-up mission, and a duty on public bodies to help people achieve that with access to natural green space.
On improving the planning system, there are some obvious missed wins there, such as making sure that planning and development decisions are in line with section 1 of the Environment Act 2021 and section 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008, to meet our carbon budgets and halt nature’s decline by 2030. You could go further, with things like implementing the findings of the Glover review to improve the contribution of national parks to restoring nature here in the UK. So there are some really missed opportunities for positive planning.
On the negative side, I do not know whether we will touch on this later, but although the environmental outcome reports proposed in the Bill sound positive in principle for the natural environment, the way they are framed risks undermining some of our most important conservation laws. Those clauses and that part of the Bill need some attention to make sure they do what I think they are intended to do, which is to add a new layer of protection, not to weaken our long-standing, important environmental protections in this country.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Carolyn McKenzie: The earlier speaker made some really good points; I back up all those points, but I will not reiterate them. At the local level, it is very much about integration across different policies. There is some really good stuff in the Bill, but integration across all the different policies will be key. This is not just about the big infrastructure, such as wind farms or EV charging; it is about making sure that environmental considerations are integrated across all projects in infrastructure and all levelling-up projects, because a pound spent on levelling up can deliver on your outcomes for net zero or biodiversity, and investment in net zero and biodiversity can deliver on your levelling-up ambitions as well.
In addition, although there is a real need for some of the big infrastructure projects, if I take a look at Surrey as a whole and our net zero emissions, the biggest proportion of those emissions, 41%, is down to private sector transport, and 31% to 33% is down to domestic housing. Those local actions—local public transport and active travel to get people out of their cars, and remote working, as well as tackling retrofit—have the potential to not only reduce emissions, but to drive jobs and growth and tackle inequalities, because inequality is hugely linked to the environment: a lot of our poorer communities have the poorest environments. The one thing I will repeat from Richard’s comments is that there is a lack of recognition that a healthy environment for all is really important when it comes to having a healthy economy and a healthy social area as well.
The last point I would like to make is about taking a place-based approach. Funding is often fragmented, competitive, and focused on specific things like EV cars or renewable energy. At the county level, we are very much looking at a place-based approach where we can link things together and look at a community as a whole. If we could link all that funding together and have a pot that delivers on an evidence-based approach that says what is needed in the area and links up all of our ambitions around health, economy, social and environment, that would be a lot easier, and we could make funding deliver more than the separate, individual pots could. Having place-based funding that is based on local evidence of need would be really helpful.
Paul Miner: I should say at the beginning that I am speaking today on behalf of CPRE, the countryside charity, and point out that CPRE is leading the Better Planning Coalition, which includes a wide variety of environmental, social and community organisations that have come together to put forward a shared view on how we can improve the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill and make it stronger for people and nature more generally. We are working in a number of key areas. Climate change is one of them.
In CPRE’s view, at the moment the planning system has an institutional weakness in dealing with climate change. There is a duty on local authorities in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 for their development plan document—so local plans essentially—to contribute towards the mitigation of and adaptation to climate change. However, that duty is not strong enough. It does not consistently influence local authorities or planning inspectors examining plans or appeals. The Bill merely reiterates this existing and insufficient duty. We have seen, for example, recent planning stats reports for 24 recently adopted local plans that show only one mention of climate change for 24 of boosting housing supply. The priorities of the planning system have become massively skewed and unbalanced.
We want to see in the final version of the Bill some additional clauses that apply the climate change duty both more meaningfully, so that it clearly reiterates the national commitments made in the Climate Change Act 2008, but also applies the climate change duty to national planning policy as well as just local plans. It should also apply to decision making on specific planning applications, as well as just in the making of local plans. We also need to see more detail about what the duty means both in terms of mitigation, achieving Climate Change Act targets on budget and climate budgets, and in terms of adaptation, relating it to relevant statutory risk assessments and compliance. The coalition is coming forward with some further ideas on this, which we are very keen to discuss further with the Committee in due course.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Dr Benwell: We cannot give a complete view, because so much is proposed to be done in regulations and that itself is a problem. The idea of taking a more outcome-based approach to environmental impact assessments is a good one and there are definitely areas where environmental impact assessment and strategic environmental assessment can be improved. So things like making sure that you get the thresholds right to include all potentially environmentally damaging plans; that could be improved. Things like making scoping decisions mandatory; that could be improved. The problem as we see it with the environmental outcomes proposed in the Bill is that the outcomes set can simply be spliced in in place of existing environmental requirements. We do not know that those will be robust enough.
For example, in the environmental impact assessment process, if anything proposed in a plan or a project is likely to cause significant harm to the environment, there is a duty to avoid, mitigate or compensate for that potential harm. In the new system, if an environmental outcome is set that, for example, talks about a general outcome of improving the abundance of species at the national level, any sort of project that claims to be doing that nationally could ignore local impacts. It could ignore the impacts on particularly important sites and species at the local level. That could be extremely damaging for things like sites of special scientific interest and UNESCO sites, which are afforded their main protection through the planning system and through the EIA and SEA.
I should point out that these clauses will affect not just the EIA and SEA; it is really important to note that the habitats regulations and the habitats regulations assessments are also affected. If you look at clause 127, you will find an extraordinary provision that says that anything done in an environmental outcomes report can be treated as satisfying any existing duties under the habitats regulations assessment process. That process, which is what protects our most internationally important wildlife sites from harm, is even stronger than the EIA and SEA, because under the habitats regulations process, before a site can be affected by a project that causes significant harm on site or by contiguous activities, the developer must prove that mitigation is in place to avoid that significant harm, or that there are imperative overriding public interest reasons to proceed and compensatory measures are in place.
That is a really high legal bar to protect our most important sites and species of international significance. Under the Bill, the Government could put in its place a more parochial and limited environmental outcome, such as saying that the best available technology has been used to reduce water pollution, or that overall national trends will be going in the right direction. That would weaken and undermine the extremely important protection provided by the habitats regulations. You do not often see a clause in a Bill that says that anything in regulations can be treated as satisfying existing legal duties, or indeed that anything in them can amend, replace or repeal any of the most fundamental parts of the habitats regulations that we have come to rely on for decades. The concept is quite good, but the way in which it is being applied brings serious risks of undermining long-standing environmental rules that would potentially create huge uncertainty in the planning system, because developers and conservationists alike have become used to operating under this system.
Paul Miner: I agree with Richard about the environmental dimension of the environmental outcomes reports. It is also worth the Committee considering that under the current system, local authorities have to do a sustainability appraisal, looking not only at environmental factors but at social and economic factors.
To pick up on what Richard and Carolyn pointed out, there is quite an important issue about the effect of the planning system on human health. It seems particularly strange that in a Bill about levelling up we are not using the outcomes reports as a means of embedding the Government’s levelling-up objectives in the planning system. For example, the levelling-up White Paper calls for measures on increasing healthy life expectancy and regenerating town centres, but those will not be assessed at all through the planning system under environmental outcomes reports, whereas they would have been under the current system of sustainability appraisals.
Carolyn McKenzie: I agree that taking an outcome-based approach allows us to be more flexible and achieve more, but it depends on how narrow the outcomes are, which is Richard’s point. It would be really good to ensure that the outcomes in the Bill match the performance targets and indicators that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is currently consulting on under the Environment Act 2021. They need to link up so that we have one set of environmental indicators that all sectors and all areas are delivering on.
To pick out one example, there is no mention of natural capital in the Bill, as Richard pointed out. How can we put in an outcome relating to natural capital, which could be really important for health, attracting businesses to areas or carbon sequestration? That is a key element of levelling up, so I urge caution in ensuring that any new outcomes link directly to the Environment Act and the 25-year environment plan.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Dr Benwell: I should have brought my copy of the Bill. There are actually some very good bits in clause 117. The Government have done quite a good job of writing in the mitigation hierarchy, which is welcome to see. The problem is linked through to clause 127, which allows everything in preceding parts simply to replace existing environmental law. It would be much better if the Government came forward with fully worked-up proposals for how to strengthen the existing system of the EIA and SEA, rather than taking the approach of giving themselves the powers to take out layers of environmental law and put in something different.
You mentioned clause 120, the so-called non-regression clause. It is obviously a good thing to have a commitment not to weaken environmental protection, but I am afraid that the efficacy of such a clause is really in doubt, for a number of reasons. First, it is the Secretary of State in whose opinion environmental law has to be maintained at an equal level. That is a highly subjective opinion left in the hands of Ministers—and, just to emphasise, not a court in the land would challenge that on the basis of ultra vires without it being patently absurd. Courts are really deferential to decision makers, so if a Minister were to say, “Yes, this is equivalent,” that statement would have to be really, really daft for a court to challenge it. So we think that that kind of non-regression provision is unlikely to be robust.
Secondly, the other noteworthy part of the non-regression provision is that it talks about overall levels of protection. That is where we come back to the idea of talking about the environment in aggregate and those big broad trends of species-level data, which is really important—like Carolyn, I think that we should be linking back to the Environment Act targets—but it is not sufficient. We must keep in place the rules that protect the particular, the peculiar and the exciting at the local level that matter to important people, and those local populations of species and habitats that are so important. Otherwise, we get into a runaway offsetting mentality where the assurance that things will be better overall can be taken to obscure a lot of harm to the natural environment at the local level.
So there are some good things in clause 117 and some nice sentiments in clause 120, but overall they do not give the reassurance that would be provided by simply taking time to work up provisions in full and bring them forward in primary legislation rather than giving Ministers the power to swip and swap through regulations.
Paul Miner: I have nothing further to add on this question.
Carolyn McKenzie: I have nothing further to add other than to reiterate the local element. You do get lots of peculiarities in different areas, and they can be lost, so we must make sure that they are not.
Neil O’Brien
Q
Paul Miner: We think that a brownfield-first approach to new housing and commercial building development can have a number of benefits. We have seen constantly over the years that there is enough brownfield land available for over 1 million new homes in any given year, and this supply of brownfield is constantly replenishing as more sites come forward, and it is possible to build at higher densities.
We think there are a number of clauses in the Bill that could help with brownfield regeneration, such as those relating to changing compulsory purchase order powers, as you have mentioned, and the infrastructure levy. Getting local plans in place more quickly will also help to bring brownfield sites forward. So we see a lot of benefits to a brownfield-first approach.
However, the problem we have consistently had over the past 15 years, under both Conservative and Labour Governments, is that it has been easier for large housebuilders to bring forward speculative developments through the planning system, often not contained within local plans, than to be able to get these schemes through at appeal. We think there are a number of measures the Government need to look at.
Some of these may involve legislation but more involve changes to policy to give councils more power to set targets for the amount of housing needed in their area, to make sure that housing targets reflect what is likely to be built in the area, as opposed to what house builders say when they claim to be meeting housing targets that they then do not build, and to identify local needs for affordable homes. In many areas of the country they are crying out for affordable homes, but the kind of housing that is being built is not meeting those identified needs.
We recognise that there is a lot in the Bill that is helping to bring forward the benefits of a brownfield-first approach, in terms of, as you say, embodied carbon, saving precious agricultural land and regenerating communities in of need levelling up. At the same time, we think there is scope to do much more.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Dr Ellis: There are two issues. One is about rights to be heard. We have decided now in the Bill to call several documents “development plan documents,” which has a specific legal meaning and a specific legal way. So the strategic plan, the supplementary plan and the local plan are now all development plan documents. If a development plan document is being prepared, it has legal weight in planning, and the quick answer is there therefore must be a right to be heard. On the strategic plans, the Bill currently says that it positively excludes the right to be heard at an examination. That seems to us wholly wrong and unnecessary. If people want to, we should give them the opportunity turn up at an inquiry and test the evidence.
To be clear, even if the criteria are set nationally, green belt allocations will probably be set in those strategic plans. In other words, the issues that people really care about have to be debated in an arena where there is a right to be heard. That would be an easy modification to make, and I so hope that Ministers will seriously give it consideration.
The other issue is centralisation. That worries us even more, because nationally described development management policy has a new legal status. There has been some debate about that, and we are absolutely convinced that it does have a new and special legal status as national policy described in law. The clauses elevate that policy so that where there is a dispute, it is resolved in favour of the national policy.
There are no limitations on what the Secretary of State can include in that national development management policy; nor is there a robust process of parliamentary scrutiny, which there is for national policy statements in major infrastructure. That has to change. If the Government are determined to have such a policy, parliamentary scrutiny and public participation in setting it are crucial.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Dr Ellis: Simply, there will not be any. The duty to co-operate was a problematic measure—a stop-gap measure—inserted after the abolition of regional planning. You would expect me to say this, and it may not be popular, but regional planning in this country was critically important to our future. I understand and have to accept that there was insufficient public support for it. Again, it simply did not have the right kind of governance, but it was important.
Put simply, for the reasons you have heard, which I will not repeat, it is absolutely essential that we have bigger-than-local decision making. That enables communities to make decisions; it does not trump them. If you want to preserve the east coast from a sea level rise of 1.5 metres by the beginning of the next century, which is predicted by the Environment Agency, you cannot expect 33 district councils between the Humber and the Thames to do that on their own, so it is very important that we get that right.
Removing the duty to co-operate and replacing it with a policy imperative just makes a situation even worse. Devolution could help, but of course, that is an ad hoc process; we do not yet know who wants to do devolution. I am sat in Derbyshire, and I have no idea whether Derbyshire wants to be a combined authority or not. It is vital that we have that strategic tier.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Dr Ellis: Development corporations are really welcome, but it is worth remembering that when you have effective planning, which links planning to delivery—that is what a development corporation does; you can really drive change—the most important thing is that their governance needs to be modernised so that they are genuinely accountable and participative. The purpose of a development corporation is to draw on what Oliver Letwin recognised in his review: the critical role of the public sector as master developer in de-risking development.
Much of the challenge in why we are not delivering the homes that we consent in the planning process is because the private sector has limited incentive to deliver beyond certain levels, based on absorption rates. Development corporations can do that. It is worth reflecting on the fact that, within 20 years of the war, we consented 33 new towns, which housed 2.8 million people and paid for themselves. That record is largely forgotten but still very powerful.
The answer is that the challenge in giving the powers solely to local authorities is that they work only when Government stand behind them. I think it is the Government’s role in housing that we need to draw out. They need to be more muscular in supporting local authorities. The experience from the locally led development corporation in north Essex illustrates that point.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Dr Ellis: I think there is a huge opportunity to do that. It is essential that the Bill contains a purpose for planning if you want to recreate public trust by making it clear in statute what the system is for. It is interesting that there are currently four outcome duties in law on planning, but there is nothing in the Bill equivalent to what we see in Bills on social care or in national parks, where there is a clear sense of what planning is meant for.
If you want this new journey—we all do—to benefit the future of England, you need to need to set down that purpose around sustainable development. That is an inclusive goal; we are already internationally signed up to it, and for me, it is the only development goal that is credible for the future of this nation. Underneath that, I would quickly say that it is heartbreaking to see the potential that planning has to deal with climate change mitigation and adaptation and the dysfunction that we are currently presented with.
I have just seen an inspector remove a net zero policy from an area action plan for a new development in West Oxfordshire. That tells you that Government policy urgently needs to be reviewed. The whole sector has been calling for an urgent ministerial statement to clarify how net zero is delivered. We really cannot wait for the NPPF review at the end of 2024 for that; it must happen now. On adaptation, the issue is even more serious, in terms of having to begin to think about shifting population off the east coast, the challenges of surface water flooding, the endless flooding in Calder valley and how plans need to grasp the allocation of land for natural flood defence.
I know that I cannot go on, but all I can see is huge potential. We need to bind the planning and climate Bills together. The climate Bill must have specific requirements on the sixth carbon budget, and stronger requirements on adaptation, specifically around water and flooding.
The Chair
Thank you. We are going to take questions from members of the Committee, starting with the shadow Minister.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Gavin Smart: The levy is certainly similar to CIL, but I believe it is managed in a way that CIL is not. I share some of your concerns about the impact of the levy on lower-value sites. One of our concerns is that we are currently struggling to deliver the housing that we need, particularly affordable housing and social rented housing. Whether a levy on a lower-value site will be able to deliver the resources needed to support the delivery of new homes for social rent is a significant concern.
The other issue that I would raise with respect to the levy is that we are very aware of the role that, historically, section 106 planning gain has played in the delivery of affordable housing and social rented housing. About half of affordable housing is delivered in that way. Although there are commitments from the Government that affordable housing delivery will be maintained, we are anxious to understand the detail of that, because section 106 has been such an important part of the delivery mechanism.
Kate Henderson: Thank you for the opportunity to speak to the Committee today. We really support the Government’s ambition to address regional inequalities in our towns and cities’ economies through levelling up. It is also very good to see housing and planning as part of the Bill, but we share have concerns around the impact of planning reforms on the ability to deliver much-needed affordable housing.
When it comes to the infrastructure levy, we are really looking at four areas where we would like to have a bit more detail and some assurances. The first is the issue of protections for the delivery of affordable housing. The second is around the importance of on-site delivery of affordable housing. The third is around the risk to viability, and the fourth is that we would like to see an exemption from the levy for sites that are 100% affordable.
The Chair
We are going to carry on, but we are having a slight problem with your sound and picture, Kate. If it breaks down, we might turn the video off and just have your audio, but we will see.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
“to ensure affordable housing levels will be maintained, with current levels as a minimum.”
Correct me if I am wrong, but I assume that you were referring to proposed new section 204G of the Planning Act 2008, which is discussed in schedule 11. I wanted to probe why you think the language in that clause, or anything else the Government have said in relation to the Bill, is anywhere near robust enough to guarantee the maintenance of current affordable housing levels. I read the language, which is
“must have regard…to the desirability of ensuring”
as quite weak in terms of ensuring that we see that affordable supply of housing come forward.
Kate Henderson: My starting point is that we really welcome the Government’s commitment to ensuring that as much affordable housing will be delivered. As Gavin Smart mentioned, at the moment section 106 planning obligations deliver around 50% of all affordable housing in England. It is vital that what replaces it delivers, ideally more, but at least as much. We are pleased that there is that reference in schedule 11, in proposed new section 204G, around having a mechanism to ensure that affordable housing levels will be maintained at current levels, but what we would like is a greater commitment and assurances from the Committee and ideally in the legislation about what we mean by current levels of affordable housing delivery.
There is a risk that in some areas minimum affordable housing requirements, which should be based on objectively assessed need, are actually being delivered by what is coming through the planning system now, and that is not enough in some areas and we do not want that under-delivery to be baked in. We would really like clarity from Ministers that, to protect affordable housing delivery, current levels will be based on current targets for affordable housing, which should be based on objectively assessed need.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Kate Henderson: I think the Bill suggests that section 106 agreements will be retained for larger sites. I do not think we have necessarily determined the size of those sites yet and potentially that will come through in secondary legislation.
What we are learning from section 106 is that there are some really important considerations. We have been having positive conversations with the Government about this, particularly around the delivery of on-site affordable housing. The Government are bringing forward a new infrastructure levy. That levy has got to ensure that we get inclusive, mixed communities—that we get the integration of different housing types and different tenures, and that they are built to good, high standards. We know that mixed communities are far more successful than exclusively, for example, poor ones. We want to have the affordable housing integrated in.
That is one of the really important lessons from section 106—when it works well, you get an integration of your housing all on site and you get other good on-site infrastructure delivered at the right time as well. That helps with public acceptance of development, particularly at scale.
I think we would want to see in the design of the new levy that early engagement with housing associations is there absolutely at the outset and that on-site delivery is considered the default position when it comes to significant sites. We would really like to ensure that local authority use of contributions for purposes other than affordable housing would have to come after the agreed level of delivery of affordable housing on site.
Gavin Smart: I strongly agree with Kate, particularly around needing to be sure that we are not baking in low levels of performance on the delivery of affordable housing. We need to be sure that the expectation of the continuation of delivery of affordable housing is at a sensible level, supported by some sort of assessment of need. Like Kate and anybody involved in the delivery of affordable and social housing, we are acutely aware that the key benefit of section 106 has been the delivery of on-site in-kind provision that delivers the mixed communities that we all know work. It actually helps a scheme’s viability, because it means that developers know a proportion of the scheme they are developing will be sold immediately on completion to a landlord who will immediately fill it with tenants. That helps with speed of completion at the site.
The most important point is that levies do many things, but what they do not do is give you actual physical buildings; they give you an amount of money. If you are struggling to find a site to deploy that money, they do not perform in the same way as section 106 reforms. So we have concerns about the levy and that is why we welcome the fact that, although what we mean by larger sites is not yet defined, the Government are signalling that they want to retain section 106 for larger sites. That is important. I think it will help delivery and help to build mixed communities.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Gavin Smart: First of all, there is more flexibility in setting the levy than we previously expected. That is welcome because we want local authorities to be able to respond to the facts on the ground. However, like many public policy problems this is a matter of trade-offs. You do not want such complexity in the system that we are down to negotiating levies on individual sites, so it is about getting the balance right.
More important, something that I think is a bugbear of every attempt at planning reform is that, although we all believe that no planning system is perfect so it is always worth looking at how you can improve it, the other issue with planning policies is whether they are properly resourced enough to enable the local authorities that are operating them from London. Certainly, we have a concern that it might prove challenging for local authorities to be able to manage the complexity of negotiating a large number of different levies in different places. We know that elsewhere in the planning system local authorities can be outgunned by the development industry in terms of capacity. That remains a concern, because we think that overall capacity in local authority planning is stretched.
Kate Henderson: We think the test and learn approach is really to be welcomed. Alongside that, obviously we would want to see a transitional approach. Test and learn is particularly important when we are looking at viability and the delivery of much-needed affordable housing. It is really important, given that development and land values vary greatly from site to site and place to place, that we get the levy set at the right level to ensure viability, to ensure delivery, and to ensure we are creating great communities that include much-needed affordable housing. We have advocated a test and learn approach and it is really positive that the Government are looking at that. We would want to be a part of that approach to make sure we are able to get affordable housing, and that we have the good working relationships between local authorities, developers and housing associations on-site working with the community—
The Chair
We are having slight problems with the sound. We will just give it a second. Do you want to carry on?
Kate Henderson: I was just saying that we are very, very keen that, as test and learn is rolled out, housing associations, working with councils and developers, are part of that programme, so we ensure we set the levies at a level that enables the delivery of great places with high-quality affordable housing on site in mixed communities. Doing that in a phased way to make sure it is working, while retaining parts of the old system as this is transitioned out, sounds like a sensible, pragmatic way forward.
Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Fifth sitting) Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateDepartment: Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities
Matthew Pennycook
Main Page: Matthew Pennycook (Labour - Greenwich and Woolwich)Department Debates - View all Matthew Pennycook's debates with the Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities
Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Fifth sitting)
Matthew Pennycook ExcerptsTuesday 28th June 2022
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 28 June 2022 - (28 Jun 2022)
The Chair
Before I call Matthew Pennycook, I remind Members that this is line-by-line scrutiny; it is not like the Chamber. We have time to go through these issues and we are not under any pressure in that regard. If there are matters that need to be raised, please let us consider them. That is what the Committee is for and what the public expect.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
I just wanted to ask the Minister a question.
The Chair
If Members wish to make a speech, they can make a speech and use that opportunity now. I call Matthew Pennycook.
Matthew Pennycook
Noted, Mr Paisley.
The Minister dwelled on the OBR in his response. I understand why: he is much more personally familiar with it. He did not touch on the Climate Change Committee, but that should be brought into the debate, not only in terms of the rigour the Committee provides for holding the Government to account on climate targets, which change over time—as when the House updated the Climate Change Act 2008 to take into account the net zero target—but for what it does for the consensus around those goals. It is extremely important.
This is the Minister’s first piece of legislation. I hope he will want it to stay on the statute book and the levelling-up missions and the wider agenda to outlive him, this Parliament and the legislation itself. Surely he can see the benefit. That is why I urge him to think again about the amendments to do with an independent body that, by passing consensus about those aims, brings in independent rigour in a way that is accessible to the public, allowing the agenda to be more properly and adequately scrutinised.
The Chair
Does any other Member wish to catch my eye? Does the Minister wish to respond?
Alex Norris
That is very much the spirit in which I tabled the amendment, which is the first Opposition amendment to the Bill. That might be construed as the Opposition wanting to make life hard for the Government or wanting a stick with which to beat them, but far from it. The amendment would ensure that partners all have a mutual responsibility to each other, and that is partly about holding each other to account and having difficult and supportive conversations about why we have not been able to do things that we have sought to do.
The Minister made a point about unconscious bias being woven out with independence, and that is important. The listed regulators—Ofsted, Ofgem, Ofcom and so on—are good comparisons for this space. We have offered the Government a kind of menu of comparisons, and I am surprised that none of them is seen as the right one. My hon. Friend the Member for York Central finished her remarks by addressing the particularly pertinent point about inequalities. It is hard to understand why those inequalities are not considered to have same level of importance as the other agendas. That is disappointing.
The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale made an interesting point, which I hope will come up later in the debate. Part 1 of the Bill is a bit unusual. We have not yet had the clause 1 stand part debate, but I am not sure why those provisions have to be in the Bill. Usually, Ministers argue that things do not need to be in the Bill and the Opposition argue that they do. I will not argue against them, but it is unusual that the Government should have chosen to include the provisions.
I dare say that what is involved is the trick of planting a stake in the ground and saying, “We are going to deliver on these important things.” However, when we consider the point made by the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran, we see that there is an asterisk against this part of the Bill: the Government still want the flexibility to mark their own homework and change it if they want. Those two things are a little oddly juxtaposed. The Government want to put their head above the parapet and make the legislation central to what they want to do. That is quite a brave and risky thing to do, so I am surprised that they are not able to go a tiny bit further.
The Minister mentioned the Levelling Up Advisory Council and the esteemed people on it. We are lucky that they have chosen to take part in public life in that way, and we are grateful to them. I completely agree with all that has been said about their independent-mindedness and capability to speak for themselves, but I say gently to the Minister—this is not a point against him personally, but against the Government—that it is not those people who we do not trust. Of course we trust their independence, but how on earth can we know what they are saying and what their views are? That is the problem.
As we have seen before with various such advisory bodies, in reality the Government will sit on the difficult things and trumpet the good things. Perhaps there is an element of human nature in that—there is huge element of sadness in it—but that is what will happen. If the Government are really committed to delivering on this matter, why not go that little bit further?
I accept the point about the technical annex and, as the Minister put it, the unprecedented detail. This is a saddening thought in many ways, but I would probably go so far as to say that if I thought he was going to remain in his Department until 2030, a lot of my anxieties would disappear—although, I would have anxieties about how we had managed to lose another two elections. Putting that to one side, because I do not think it is likely to happen, I have no doubt about the Minister’s personal commitment to the agenda, his personal probity, and his willingness to have difficult conversations and to explain on the record where things have not gone as they ought to. However, I would argue strongly that that is not a characteristic that applies across Government—I do not think anybody could say that is really a feature of this Government. He says that I could go through and update each technical annex every year—I am surprised that I should have to do that on the Government’s behalf. The problem is that what we will see overtime is the booklet getting thinner, because the difficult ones will drop out or they will be replaced by another one—that is what we normally see. The Government will say, “We have got advanced metrics now that better understand the nature of life in the UK.”
Alex Norris
Housing need, as my hon. Friend says, is a good example. The metrics change to suit the outcome. The Minister knows that, which is why it needs to be in the Bill. He said that these sorts of things will accompany a statement from the Government, and that that will do in place of independent scrutiny. Those two things are not the same. There should not be the level of trust that means we would solely, on the word of Ministers, take what they say they have done as read. When our positions are swapped, I do not think the Minister would take that from us—and I do not think he should either. The need for a level of independence is obvious and clear.
I will not press the amendment to a Division, because I really want Ministers to think again about this. There will be other opportunities in this process to look for a proportionate level of independence. The Opposition have been non-prescriptive. I offered three different versions of independent scrutiny, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South offered a fourth—there may well be other versions. I hope that Ministers will reflect and come back, either at the next stage or in the other place, and put a provision in its place. The case for that is a very good one. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Ninth sitting) Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateDepartment: Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities
Matthew Pennycook
Main Page: Matthew Pennycook (Labour - Greenwich and Woolwich)Department Debates - View all Matthew Pennycook's debates with the Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities
Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Ninth sitting)
Matthew Pennycook ExcerptsTuesday 5th July 2022
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 5 July 2022 - (5 Jul 2022)
Alex Norris
The Minister has never heard me argue for the assembly model—a red herring that he introduced to the debate—and I think the characterisation of committees as “unelected” is unhelpful. He has heard me argue over a significant time for the powers set out on page 140 of the White Paper to be available to county combined authorities. If they choose to be led by an elected Mayor, that is their choice and I would absolutely support it.
I think that is where we will end up in Nottingham and Nottinghamshire, although, as I have made clear, it is not my preference—perhaps by repeating how against it I am at all stages, I am attempting desperately to ensure that I never end up a candidate. Nevertheless, that has been my view throughout. The difference between my position and the Minister’s is that I have no intention of foisting mine on other people, whereas the Minister clearly does.
The Minister started by saying that he prefers the mayoral model—that is wonderful—and he made a strong case for it. I advocate that he take that case to the people of Leicester and Leicestershire, and given how persuasive he is, maybe he will succeed in convincing them. That would be an example of the process working well, and I would support his efforts in principle, if not in substance. But let us address this point about unelected committees, which as I said, is a bizarre characterisation. Let me put it this way: the Minister has introduced 60 clauses to create county combined authorities, and that has been important for this Bill Committee, which, by his logic, is unelected. In reality, the constituent members of those committees have very much stood for election and they lead their local authorities. I do not have any problem with that democracy. If four elected leaders meet for a pint after work, do they suddenly form an unelected committee and their democratic mandate ceases? I think they are still elected, and if they misbehaved that night, they would be treated as if they were. The idea that such committees are unelected is for the birds, frankly.
The Minister said—I am not sure that I agree—that this is for the voters. That is excellent news. In that case, I do not think he has anything to fear about what is established as the local preference. Why do something for someone if they do not want it?
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that there is an inherent contradiction in the Minister’s argument? The Bill deliberately hands significant powers, particularly the spatial development strategies in schedule 7, to CCAs—or the unelected Assemblies—but denies them to mayoral combined authorities.
Alex Norris
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. In fact, many of the arguments that the Committee has heard in the first few days will undoubtedly be used in reverse for the next few days. When it comes to planning, I do not think that is the Government’s intention. We will see those arguments again, but in reverse.
Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Thirteenth sitting) Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateDepartment: Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities
Matthew Pennycook
Main Page: Matthew Pennycook (Labour - Greenwich and Woolwich)Department Debates - View all Matthew Pennycook's debates with the Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities
Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Thirteenth sitting)
Matthew Pennycook ExcerptsTuesday 12th July 2022
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 12 July 2022 - (12 Jul 2022)
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I beg to move amendment 118, in clause 75, page 85, line 9, at end insert—
“(1A) Regulations under this Chapter may require relevant planning authorities to process data in accordance with approved data standards relating to the number and nature of—
(a) second homes, and
(b) holiday let properties
in the planning authority area.”.
This amendment would enable planning data regulations to provide for the collection of data to national standards about second homes and holiday lets.
The amendment seeks to aid transparency and therefore accountability on some of the issues that the Committee has already discussed regarding the number of homes that are not used for permanent dwelling.
I could give the Committee various statistics on excessive second home ownership and holiday lets. For example, estate agents in Cumbria tell me that up to 80% of all house sales since the pandemic began, two and a bit years ago, have been in the second homes market. In one year, from June 2020 to June 2021, there was a 32% rise in the number of holiday lets in the district of South Lakeland. Hon. Members can imagine the number of holiday lets that existed to start with in a district that includes the biggest chunk of the Lake district and a large chunk of the Yorkshire dales; 32% is a huge number. Across England, there has been a 50% reduction in the number of long-term rental properties available. Outside London, there has been an 11% rise in rents; in London, the increase is nearly double that.
All those figures come from local councils, housing charities and research I have carried out myself; none of it comes from central Government sources. The amendment would ensure that there is a real sense of the scale of the problem. I feel it and I know it, from talking to people in my constituency. From Grasmere to Garsdale, from Coniston to Arnside, every community is suffering a haemorrhaging of its working-age population. They have experienced that for years, but in the last two years the situation has been especially awful.
What do we need to know? What are we looking for? Someone who owns a second property that they rent out for 70 days a year counts as a small business, which means they do not pay council tax and they do not pay business rates either. I can think of thousands of homes in my constituency where someone who is, by definition, comfortable—to say the very least—is being subsidised by people working every hour God sends, with two, three or four different jobs, often on minimum wage. Those hard-working people are subsidising second home owners, who do not have to pay any kind of tax whatsoever, either to the Government or to the local authority, on their dwelling, and that is not on. It is not right and we must do everything we can to prevent it.
We can dig down, via various routes, to get the number of holiday lets, give or take, but we do not know anything about second homes—for a slightly good reason. After a Liberal Democrat by-election win in Ribble Valley in 1992, Mr Major abolished the poll tax and introduced the council tax, and gave 50% relief—a subsidy—to anyone with a second home. The Labour Government between 1997 and 2010 reduced that to just a 10% subsidy, so people had to pay 90%. The coalition got rid of the subsidy altogether, so now, in most authorities, second home owners pay full council tax. As a result, there is no incentive to register a home as a second home, so we just do not know; broadly speaking, the information we have is anecdotal.
The purpose of the amendment is to make sure that we know formally the scale of the problem, so that the Government can be held to account and we can take action to alleviate the problem, in order to ensure that there are homes for the permanent populations of our communities.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Mark. I take the opportunity to echo the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North in warmly welcoming the new Ministers to their places and in thanking their predecessors—the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, the right hon. Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), and the hon. Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien)—for the constructive way in which they engaged with us and the thoughtful manner in which they approached the consideration of the Bill. On the basis of this morning’s proceedings, I am confident that we will continue in that vein.
Turning to amendment 118, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale is a doughty champion for his constituents on this issue. He will know from previous debates in the House on this subject that we are in complete agreement that the Government need urgently to commit to far bolder action. It is not in dispute that a balance needs to be struck when it comes to second homes and short-term holiday lets; no one is arguing that they are of no benefit to local economies, but the potential benefits associated with them must continually be weighed against their impacts on local people.
At present, the experience of a great many rural, coastal and, indeed, urban communities makes it clear that the Government have not got the balance right. The problem is not second homes and short-term holiday lets per se; as the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale said, it is excessive numbers of them in a given locality. While individual hon. Members will have a clear sense of the communities in their constituencies that are affected by this problem, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to highlight with the amendment the fact that we do not know the precise number of second homes and holiday lets across the country, or their distribution.
Members have heard me say this before, but council tax records are likely to significantly undercount second homes, both because there is no financial incentive to register a property in areas where a council tax discount is no longer offered, and because second home owners can still avoid council tax altogether by claiming that their properties have moved from domestic to non-domestic use.
The estimates of second home ownership produced by the English housing survey are more reliable, but even they are based on a relatively small sample and rely on respondents understanding precisely what is meant by a second home and accurately reporting their situation. Similar limitations apply to short-term lettings. There is no single definitive source of data on rates for what is, after all, an incredibly diverse sector, with providers offering accommodation across multiple platforms.
It therefore strikes us as entirely logical that as well as considering what more might be done to mitigate the negative impact of excessive rates of second home ownership and short-term and holiday lets, the Government should consider whether digitisation of the planning system could allow us to better capture data on overall rates and provide a better sense of which parts of the country face the most acute challenges. We therefore very much support amendment 118, and we hope the Minister will give it serious consideration.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I, too, support the amendment. Data is key to everything: we cannot make good, informed, evidence-based decisions unless we have data before us. In my community, I have seen my boundaries change because of the number of empty properties and people not registering. I have seen a real change street by street as well as community by community. Second homes, commuter homes and holiday homes are taking over residential properties, which my local residents cannot afford to live in any more due to the lack of supply. As a result, they are having to move out of my city. We have to look at this extraction economy through the eyes of the people it impacts the most, and collecting data is absolutely key to that.
There is another reason I think data is really important. The Government are driving their whole housing policy through numbers. They are saying, “We are going to build x units in each of these locations across the country.” We have heard hon. Members in various debates discuss whether those levels are right, but if those housing units simply become empty units, second homes or holiday lets, that will not resolve the housing crisis we are dealing with. It will not add to our communities or make a difference to them. It will not have an impact on Government targets for addressing the housing crisis. It is essential that we can identify the issue in the detail it deserves, not just in whole areas but drilling down to understand what is happening in different parts of the community.
In York, we have around 2,000 Airbnbs—last time I checked, the number was 1,999. The vast majority are concentrated in my constituency of York Central. I can name the streets where those properties are. The number of homes is increasing in those areas. We will go on to talk about measures that the Government can introduce—measures that I very much hope they will introduce—to address this serious problem, which is sucking the life out of our community. If we have up to 350,000 Airbnbs nationally, what does that mean for Government targets for house building? How are they going to say they are building additional homes when we are seeing that sharp increase in Airbnbs, second homes and so on?
The Government need the data to drive their own housing policy and to ensure that they are delivering on their targets for improving the housing situation, rather than just watching it get worse while they busily tick boxes and say, “We are delivering, delivering, delivering,” when it is not making a scrap of difference on the ground. That is the feeling in my community. I welcome the amendment. It is a helpful start and a helpful guide to the Government about some of the considerations they should be taking into account in the planning system.
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move amendment 65, in clause 75, page 85, line 14, leave out paragraph (b).
This amendment would prevent the Government from using the powers in this Chapter for information other than that provided or processed by a planning authority under a relevant planning enactment.
Having had just over four productive and, I am sure the Committee will agree, stimulating days of line-by-line consideration of parts 1 and 2 of the Bill relating to levelling up, local democracy and devolution, we now turn to the first of the Bill’s parts on planning. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North remarked during, I think, our second session, in practice this is not wholly, or even largely, a levelling-up Bill. Indeed, I would even go so far as to describe the legislation before us as essentially a planning Bill in all but name, albeit in a shiny but ultimately flimsy levelling-up wrapper.
To the extent that this is essentially a planning Bill, it is, as hon. Members are aware, a far different beast from the legislation the Government had in mind when they published the “Planning for the future” White Paper in August 2020. The remnants of that White Paper that have found their way into this Bill, augmented with several new initiatives of varying quality, amount collectively to a rather modest set of proposals that we fear fall far short of the kind of reform that is required to meet the multiple challenges we face as a country.
Some of the planning provisions in the Bill are extremely controversial, and we will consider several of those in the hours and days that remain before the summer recess. Others are less so, and chapter 1 of part 3, which we are now considering, falls squarely in the latter category.
The clauses in chapter 1 seek to digitise the planning system, with the objectives of raising standards across planning authorities, facilitating cross-boundary engagement—particularly around infrastructure by better enabling the comparison of planning information—and, perhaps most importantly, making it easier for members of the public to access and easily comprehend information about specific local planning matters. This represents a real step forward, and I want to make it clear at the outset of the Committee’s consideration of clauses 75 to 81 that we strongly support in principle the digitisation of the planning system.
As Dr Hugh Ellis rightly put it to the Committee in our final oral evidence session:
“There are some very archaic practices in the planning process”.––[Official Report, Levelling-up and Regeneration Public Bill Committee, 23 June 2022; c. 125, Q157.]
As things stand, the planning system is overwhelmingly reliant on outdated software that places a considerable burden on the sector. Often, progress on local planning matters is almost entirely reliant on individual council planning officers and their familiarity with a particular scheme, rather than transparent and accessible information that can be drawn upon by all. Given that the systems in planning authorities more often than not sit on separate platforms, they frequently prevent cross-referencing of data by other council staff and local councillors. More generally, the planning process is too heavily reliant on documents rather than data, and this has a direct impact on the speed and quality of decisions.
Provision for public interaction with the planning system can, in many cases, appear to have been designed to actively discourage engagement, as anyone who has tried to analyse a local plan map will know. Even in cases where online access to information is possible through local authority portals, the data available is often inconsistent, confusing, and a barrier to community participation.
If any hon. Member has had to trawl their local council’s website to find information on a given planning application—I have, many times—they will know that documents often come in the form of hundreds if not thousands of pages of material spread across multiple PDFs, putting off anyone other than committed souls determined for one reason or another to trawl through reams of uploaded documentation to try to understand precisely what changes are being proposed in their local area. In short, there is an unarguable case to upgrade the technology that underpins the planning system in England. Doing so would have myriad benefits.
Perhaps most importantly, digitisation could go a long way to boosting engagement in local planning matters, particularly at the local plan phase, incentivising residents who, as things stand, would not dream of involving themselves in a planning matter. As Tony Burton from Neighbourhood Planners London put it to the Committee in oral evidence relating to local and neighbourhood plans,
“we would point to the opportunities it presents around new, complementary forms of community engagement…and more effective ways of pooling and analysing the evidence that is required”.––[Official Report, Levelling-up and Regeneration Public Bill Committee, 23 June 2022; c. 80, Q107.]
A digitised and integrated system would make it easier to find and search through the detail of a given application, and to see associated data and drawings, and it could well facilitate opportunities to directly interact or submit feedback. New interactive digital services and tools could even allow members of the public to submit their own ideas or take part in discussions and design workshops at an early stage of a proposal, and to explore different site distributions, massing and densities themselves.
Digitisation could also deliver huge benefits for the development and distribution of local plans. If done well, the roll-out of, for example, 3D model platforms could support the creation of local plans by changing the way councils visualise and make assessments of their localities, as well as aiding the monitoring of their delivery. Similarly, making local plans digitally available and interactive across England could help standardise processes and offer greater accessibility, collaboration and community engagement.
I add a small caveat at this point, in that the clauses in chapter 1 really cover only how data will processed and standardised. The Bill contains no indication of how the Government see consultation and decision-making processes being opened up to a more diverse audience as a result of digital technologies. I hope the Minister will give us a sense of the Department’s thinking in that respect, on issues such as digital mapping, when he responds.
However, that the clauses in this chapter present such opportunities is undeniable. That said, we are firmly of the view that a series of safeguards are necessary to ensure that the digitisation of the planning system does not have adverse consequences, intended or otherwise, and amendment 65, along with amendments 66, 67 and 68, seeks to provide some of those safeguards.
The particular concern that amendment 65 is intended to address is the potential for the broad powers provided by clause 75—to regulate the processing of planning data—to be used as a surreptitious way of prescribing the length, layout and content of local and neighbourhood plans. That concern arises in part from the ways in which the Bill, in other places, centralises the planning system by effectively downgrading the status and the scope of local planning—a theme will we return to many times over the course of this Committee’s life.
Given our concern that the powers in clause 75 give scope for excessive central control of local development plan formulation, we believe it is essential that the Bill clarifies that the powers are to be utilised only for the purposes of technical data handling and processing—hence the suggested removal of the broad language in subsection (2)(b) specifying that planning data can mean any information provided to, or processed by, the authority
“for any other purpose relating to planning or development in England”.
The key point here is the need for the Bill to better define what functions can be regulated by the powers set out in this clause.
Binding “approved data standards” applied to a limited range of technical functions, such as standardising contributions to the preparation of a local plan or how local plans are made accessible, is all to the good and will aid access, engagement and cross-boundary comparison. However, if not more tightly circumscribed on the face of the Bill than at present, our concern is that the proposed regulation of the processing and provision of planning data may, inadvertently or otherwise, enable the central imposition of what can and cannot be in a local or neighbourhood plan.
I appreciate the distinction is a subtle one, but I hope the Minister understands the concern we are trying to highlight. I also hope he will accept the amendment or, if not, at least provide the Committee with robust assurances that the powers in this clause will only ever be used for the narrow purpose of regulating the handling of technical data, rather than in any way dictating the form of local plans.
Mr Jones
I understand and share the desire to ensure that the information in scope of these new powers is proportionate and focuses on digitising the planning system.
Amendment 65 gets to the heart of our digital reforms—how we define planning data—and would narrow that definition. I fear, however, that the amendment underestimates the breadth of information upon which planning authorities rely. It is important to remember that these powers are designed to underpin the entirety of the planning system. We need to encompass information that will support plan making with interactive map-based plans; the flow of information, such as from the heritage sector, to planning authorities; and accessible environmental outcomes monitoring and reports.
As such, information relevant to planning may not in fact arise from a planning enactment. For example, it may come from activities of local authorities under their general power of competence or from information provided or used by that authority for the purposes of other legislation, such as the Local Government Finance Act 1992. Equally it may come voluntarily from other public sector organisations or from private companies and individuals for purposes that are not clearly related to a statutory planning function. We want to ensure that we do not accidentally exclude any of that valuable information from being made even more valuable to planning authorities and others as a result of our reforms.
As we will cover in subsequent clauses, there are underlying safeguards to protect all the information from inappropriate use. That includes protecting against inconsistency with data protection legislation. Equally, as I am sure we will discuss, our continuing pilot work with planning authorities will ensure that data standardisation can be implemented by them.
We will consult to ensure that we hear a diverse range of voices on how this part of the Bill is put into guidance. We will produce new guidance on community engagement in planning, which will describe different ways in which communities can get involved and highlight best practice.
The hon. Gentleman had some concerns about what is covered in a local or neighbourhood plan. The intent of creating the data standards is to ensure that local and neighbourhood plans can contain more information in a standardised format for the benefit of their communities. Data standards will be introduced gradually, and local authorities will not be prevented from using planning data where standards are yet to be introduced.
I hope the hon. Gentleman is reassured that amendment 65 is not required, and I would be grateful if he withdrew it.
Matthew Pennycook
I am grateful to the Minister for that response. I think the best way to put it would be that I am slightly reassured, but not wholly reassured. I welcome what he said about the recognition that the powers need to be used proportionately. I welcome the clarity on the intent. What I did not hear was a cast-iron guarantee that the powers will not, inadvertently or advertently, in any way end up constraining the length, layout and content of local development plans. Therefore, we still think and are concerned that they could be used to do such. While I will not be pressing the amendment to a vote, this is an issue that relates to our wider concerns about the status and scope of local planning, which we will come back to. 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
The planning system currently relies on information presented in various formats and contained in lengthy PDF documents from which it is hard to extract. Local plans alone can be hundreds of pages long. As the hon. Gentleman said, they can contain dozens and dozens of PDF files, which are difficult for experts to navigate, let alone members of the public.
This clause is the foundation for changing the way planning authorities hold and present their planning information, moving the planning system from being document based to being data driven. The clause does this in a manner that allows the planning system to keep pace with the innovation we hope to promote. The clause grants the Secretary of State the power to specify in regulations which planning information must meet set data standards.
I know that some are concerned that the data standards will outstrip the ability of planning authorities to meet them. I therefore want to reassure the Committee that the very reason for the approach I have just set out is to allow us to bring information into scope as it is ready. We will proceed incrementally and take into account planning authorities’ capabilities and innovation in property technology. I hope that reassures the Committee on that point.
In order to reduce the burden on planning authorities, clause 76 gives them the power to require those submitting planning data to do so in accordance with new planning data standards. In addition to enabling information in the planning system to flow freely, following that approach will help authorities perform their crucial role more effectively, with more ability to compare and co-ordinate with other authorities; will empower more local people to engage with planning, with better tools to support them in meaningfully shaping their areas; and will drive private sector innovation, improving the efficiency of the housing market as well as the planning system.
In summary, the clause begins the modernisation of the planning system, creating accessible, reusable data to the benefit of planning authorities, communities, central Government, developers and the wider private sector. I commend it to the Committee.
Matthew Pennycook
I will be brief, but I have some questions for the Minister. Clause 76(1) allows planning authorities, by published notice, to require a person to provide them with planning data that complies with an approved standard that is applicable to the data. Subsection (4) allows planning authorities to reject all or any parts of planning data from a person if they fail to comply with the requirements under subsection (1). Subsection (5) requires that planning authorities must serve the person with a notice by writing to inform them of any such decision, specifying which aspects of planning data have been rejected.
The two examples in the explanatory notes accompanying the Bill relate, respectively, to local plan creation and the identification of conservation areas nationally, rather than to individual planning applications. Given that the aim of this chapter is the creation of a data-led planning system, as the Minister said, and that the White Paper specifically referenced the intention to create a
“national data standard for smaller applications”,
it strikes me that there is a need for clarity over what “data not documents” means for individual households in the context of clause 76.
As such, I would simply like to get a sense from the Minister of what impact he believes these provisions will have on households seeking planning permission for projects such as extensions and conservatories, or garage and loft conversions. Specifically—this relates to a point that I will return to when speaking to amendment 66 to clause 77—what does the Department have planned, if anything, to ensure that residents making such applications who may lack the requisite digital skills or access to the internet are provided with appropriate support? Is any element of discretion provided, or other means of assisting such people?
Mr Jones
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions. With regard to that last one, we will probably discuss that as we go through the next few clauses. However, there is no intent to exclude those who do not have the ability to use digital equipment—those we consider to be digitally excluded. I hope that I can reassure the hon. Gentleman on that as we deal with further clauses.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 75 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 76
Power in relation to the provision of planning data
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Jones
Too often planning information is hard to use for all the purposes it should serve. The clause helps to address that problem.
The large amount of information received by planning authorities often comes to them requiring manual intervention to make it usable. Re-entry is then required to use that information later in the system. That is bureaucracy at its worst, actively detracting from the ability of planning authorities to perform their core role, taking time and resources away from the decisions that matter to communities.
The clause works to achieve three effects. First, it works with clause 75 to ensure that complying with data standards does not create a new bureaucratic burden for planning authorities receiving information and then having to render it compliant. Secondly, it gives planning authorities the power to require information in a manner that best suits their systems and the data standards to which they are subject. Thirdly, it protects against the risk that some may attempt to use the requirements under clause 75 to inconvenience authorities’ decision making by deliberately submitting information in a problematic format that is difficult to extract.
The clause also sets out the process that planning authorities must follow to exercise their powers. Planning authorities will be required to publish a notice on their website or through specific communications to inform participants about what planning data will be subject to data standards when it is submitted to a planning authority. If the data fails to comply, a notice must be served specifying the reasons for rejection.
I will touch briefly on the power of planning authorities to refuse information as non-compliant. Planning authorities are not obliged to refuse non-compliant information, although for the reasons that I have outlined we expect them to accept such information only exceptionally. The Committee will see that information cannot be refused where the provider has a reasonable excuse. That is to protect those who, for whatever reason, cannot use the means of submission stipulated by a planning authority or cannot comply with the data standards in the submission. In that way, planning authorities will be under a duty to accept and fully consider such information. Those with a reasonable excuse will not therefore be disadvantaged.
Where authorities refuse information, the clause provides them with discretion to accept a complaint resubmission, although again there is no general expectation that they should do so. The result of the clause will therefore be that, by default, the information received will be usable for all purposes to which planning authorities need it to be put. That will make their work faster and easier and will allow them to focus on planning rather than data entry.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 76 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 77
Power to require certain planning data to be made publicly available
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move amendment 66, in clause 77, page 87, line 3, at end insert—
“(4) On the day any regulations under this section are laid before Parliament the Secretary of State must publish an accompanying statement explaining the steps that the Government has taken to ensure that the regulations do not exacerbate digital exclusion.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish a statement explaining how the provisions in this Chapter do not exacerbate digital exclusion.
As we discussed in relation to development plans, Labour believes that a series of safeguards are necessary to ensure that the digitisation of the planning system does not have adverse consequences. One of the most adverse consequences that could arise from digitising the present system—we have already touched on it—is of course the exacerbation of digital exclusion, which several of the witnesses who gave oral evidence to the Committee highlighted as a concern. Digital exclusion is already a serious problem and one that does not simply affect a minority of the population. The Office for National Statistics estimates that 7.8% of UK adults have either never used the internet or last used it more than three months ago—that is 4.2 million people. The amendment seeks to address the digital divide in the context of the planning system.
When we discuss digital exclusion in the context of the Bill, it warrants saying, as my hon. Friend the Member for York Central did, that a democratic planning system that takes seriously the right of communities to be heard and to participate effectively in every aspect of development plan formulation can never be entirely digital. As Dr Hugh Ellis told the Committee:
“We can have as much digital information as we like, but we also need access to the arenas where decisions are made”.”––[Official Report, Levelling-up and Regeneration Public Bill Committee, 23 June 2022; c. 126, Q157.]
I make that point simply to stress that meaningful engagement with the planning process requires in-person access to key decision-making forums, and the Bill erodes that right in important respects. That is why we will seek to amend clauses 82 to 84 and schedule 7 in due course.
When it comes to planning data, it is evidently not the case that everyone will be able to access information digitally even once it has become more accessible, as the Bill intends. For some people, that might be because they are digitally literate but do not have the proper means to engage with online data, and that concern was raised by Jonathan Owen, the chief executive of the National Association of Local Councils, in his evidence to the Committee, who suggested the potential need for capital investment to enable remote communities such as his own to engage with online material. Otherwise, it might simply be because a small but significant proportion of the population would not be able to engage with online data even if they had the means of accessing it.
In short, digital exclusion is not merely about whether people can access the internet but about their ability to use it, and a small but significant proportion of the population struggle to do so. The most recent UK consumer digital index published by Lloyds bank estimates that 21% of adults—11 million people—do not have the essential digital skills needed for day-to-day life.
Rachael Maskell
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making this point. It is so important that we ensure that the planning process is accessible to everyone. The all-party parliamentary group on ageing and older people carried out a mini inquiry into the issue of digital exclusion. Its findings show that being able to access the planning process will be excluded from so many people. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is so important because often it is older people, who have slightly more time available to them—we all recognise that from our own constituencies—who do the heavy lifting on planning for everyone else in their community? If they cannot access those planning documents and the data, that will have an impact on their whole community’s ability to access the planning system.
Matthew Pennycook
I very much agree that, potentially, some of the proposed reforms could exclude those on whom we rely most in our communities to engage with the planning process. My hon. Friend also touches on the wider point that digital exclusion is inextricably linked to wider inequalities in our society. It is more likely to be faced by those on low incomes, disabled people and, as she said, people over the age of 65. Indeed, so close is the link between digital exclusion and other facets of poverty that it has been argued that it should be considered a key index of deprivation.
Evidence collected by the Local Government Association found that when the pandemic struck, only 51% of households earning between £6,000 and £10,000 a year had access to the internet, compared with 99% of households with an income of over £40,000. Even when poorer households had access to equipment and the internet, they were less likely to have the skills to utilise it. Clearly, to the extent that the pandemic drove many aspects of life online in ways that appear to have stuck, albeit in many instances in a hybrid form, the problem of digital exclusion has correspondingly become more acute.
I fully appreciate that the challenge posed by digital exclusion extends far beyond the issue of access to and engagement with the planning system in England. I am also fully aware that there are a range of policy initiatives beyond the remit of the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities that have been put in place to address the problem—for example, funding for adults to gain a first qualification in essential digital skills. Although, as you might expect, Sir Mark, we would urge the Government to do far more to reduce the prevalence of digital exclusion. However, in the context of the Bill, the fact that digitisation of the planning system is a key feature of it, and the rationale for that is in part boosting engagement and participation, we believe that the Government need to address digital exclusion explicitly. We believe that they should do so in two ways.
First, there should be an explicit recognition that digitisation should enhance more traditional ways of communicating with the public about local planning matters, rather than replacing them entirely. Even if digitisation of the planning system proceeds apace, many people will still want and need practical help and support with understanding and engaging with the system. Simply being furnished with the opportunity to access vast quantities of data online is unlikely on its own to encourage more people to get involved in local planning. Given the chronic lack of capacity within local planning authorities, peer-to-peer, face-to-face support is extremely challenging. But established formats for communication, such as site notices, which were referenced earlier, have a role to play. We believe that they should not necessarily be removed as requirements from the system.
Secondly, there needs to be a focus on ensuring that digitisation is as inclusive as possible. In the context of clause 77 and the other related clauses, that means a focus on ensuring that planning services, data and tools are accessible to all, including those without the confidence or skills to use digital. Amendment 66 is designed to force the Government to engage more directly with those issues, and it does so simply by specifying that on the day any regulations under the section are laid before Parliament requiring certain planning data to be made publicly available, the Secretary of State also publishes a statement on how the provisions do not exacerbate digital exclusion.
I appreciate that this is not the most elegantly crafted amendment, but the issue it seeks to tackle is a real one, and the need to do so is pressing if the Government are serious about making the planning system accessible to as many members of society as possible. As such, I hope that it will elicit from the Minister a clear response, and that the digitisation that the Bill will facilitate will not exacerbate digital exclusion. I hope that by implementing new data standards reporting requirements and transparency measures in the Bill, Ministers will be actively working to adhere to digital best practice and ensure that digital planning tools are built and designed to be easy to use for all, regardless of age or accessibility needs.
Mr Jones
I entirely agree with the spirit of the amendment. As we discussed previously, digital exclusion is an important consideration for the design of public services. The statement proposed by the hon. Gentleman would, however, be unnecessary. Currently, as we know, published planning information is often difficult to access. It is inconsistently presented and hard to use for everyone in the planning system. Too few of our constituents engage with planning. We want as many people as possible, and as diverse a range of people as possible, to participate in our planning system, and our digital reforms are central to this endeavour. We can all agree that in a world in which an increasing emphasis is placed on using digital services and tools by default, those who have to use alternative methods can be at risk of exclusion.
Matthew Pennycook
I am grateful to the Minister for that response. I am glad that he agrees with the spirit of the amendment. As he might expect, I am somewhat disappointed that he has not agreed to the publication of a simple statement addressing how the Government are responding to this serious problem, but I am reassured by his assurances that traditional methods of information publication will not be ruled out by these clauses, and by the various initiatives he has mentioned that are already under way to tackle digital exclusion. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move amendment 67, in clause 77, page 87, line 3, at end insert—
“(4) The Secretary of State must provide sufficient additional financial resources to local planning authorities to enable them to implement the provisions in this section.”
See explanatory statement for NC32.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 32—Duty to provide sufficient resources to local planning authorities for new burdens: planning data—
“(1) The Secretary of State must provide commensurate additional financial resources to local planning authorities to enable them to implement the provisions in Chapter 1 of Part 3.
(2) Where local planning authorities have made investments in planning data software that is incompatible with the changes in that Chapter, the Secretary of State must provide compensation for this additional cost.”
This new clause, along with Amendment 67, would require the Secretary of State to provide sufficient additional resources to local planning authorities to enable them to implement the changes required by Chapter 1 of Part 3.
Matthew Pennycook
Clause 77 provides powers to require certain planning data to be made publicly available. Along with new clause 32, the amendment would require the Secretary of State to provide sufficient additional financial resources to local planning authorities to enable them to implement the changes required by chapter 2 of the Bill and, where local planning authorities have made investments in planning data software that is incompatible with the changes sought, to ensure that the Secretary of State provides compensation for the additional cost incurred by its replacement. As I argued this morning, although we believe that a series of safeguards are necessary—two of which we have just discussed in relation to amendments 65 and 66—we strongly support the digitisation of the planning system and the introduction of new data standards, reporting requirements and transparency measures as part of that process.
It stands to reason, however, that a transformation of the kind that the Government are seeking to achieve when it comes to digitising planning will place extra demands on local planning authorities, primarily for their planning departments but also, by definition, for their IT support services. It is therefore important to require that they are provided with additional financial resources and investment. That would be the case irrespective of the current position of local planning authorities when it comes to skills, capacity and resourcing. After all, the kind of change that clauses 75 to 81 seek to facilitate, whether that be the harnessing of new digital technology, new digital engagement processes, or the integration of spatial, environmental and other datasets across England, will by their very nature frequently involve software upgrades as well as investment in other related services.
Yet the need for significant additional investment to meet the new demands that will result from the provisions in chapter 1 is made all the more acute by the parlous present state of local planning authorities when it comes to resources. The Department is well aware of that long-standing problem. For example, it has established a skills and capacity working group to determine what response is required, but precious little urgency is evident. In that respect, will the Minister tell us, when he responds, when the Department intends to publish a skills and capacity strategy and, if so, how much funding will be put behind it?
That answer aside, I am sure the Minister would agree that in general terms the pressures on local planning authorities are acute already. A report published by the National Audit Office in February 2019, entitled “Planning for new homes”, found that between 2010-11 and 2017-18 there was a 37.9% real-terms reduction in net current expenditure on planning functions by local authorities. Even when the income that authorities generated from sales, fees, and charges or transfers from other public authorities was taken into account, the report concluded that total spending on planning had fallen by 14.6% in real terms between 2010-11 and 2017-18, from £1.125 billion to £961 million.
A 2019 research paper published by the Royal Town Planning Institute found much the same, concluding that
“total expenditure on planning by local planning authorities is now just £900 million a year across England. More than half of this is recouped in income (mostly fees), meaning that the total net investment in planning is now just £400 million, or £1.2 million per local authority. This is fifty times less than local authority spending on housing welfare, and twenty times less than estimates of the additional uplift in land values which could be captured for the public during development.”
That same RTPI report also detailed the staggering regional imbalance in funding for planning, finding that the average investment in planning by local authorities in some regions is three times more per inhabitant than in others.
Put simply, as a report published by the House of Lords Built Environment Committee in January of this year put it, there is an “evolving crisis”, with local planning authorities under-resourced and consequently unable to undertake a variety of skilled planning functions effectively.
Rachael Maskell
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for moving the amendment. City of York Council has dispensed with the role of the chief planner, so now not only do we not have the skills, but that is really slowing down development. The Government are trying to reach their objectives and to see economic investment, but that just cannot happen without the infrastructure and, crucially, the people in place to see this forward. The amendment is excellent.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank my hon. Friend for that point, which is well made. Not only are local planning authorities overstretched, but they are often outgunned in their relationship with developers and in having that capacity to interrogate properly what is happening in order to get the best deal for local people.
The simplest answer as to why that has happened is a general lack of resourcing for local authorities. At the same time as dealing with budgets cuts, they have had to cope with growing responsibilities, not least in relation to social care. That general lack of resourcing is largely the result of reductions in central Government grants, which have been the most sharply cut component of local government revenue since 2009-10, falling by 37% in real terms between that year and 2019-20, from £41 billion to £26 billion in 2019-20 prices.
We therefore have a situation in which the resources dedicated to planning within local planning authorities—never particularly high by international standards, even before 2010—have fallen dramatically as a result primarily of local authority belt-tightening in response to central Government funding cuts. The Bill does not provide an opportunity to resolve the wider problems of inadequate local authority funding, but we believe—I am certain this is not the only time that we will consider this issue—that any new burdens placed on local planning authorities by this legislation must be adequately resourced and that specific commitments to that end are put on the face of the Bill.
On the new burdens associated with the planning data requirements in the Bill, there are two facets to the argument. First, local planning authorities will need sufficient additional resources to comply with the new work pressures that will be placed on them as a result of the Bill. Without such additional resources, I suspect that many local planning authorities will struggle to comply in practice with the provisions of chapter 1. Without a commitment to new funding, it is not difficult to imagine, to give a practical example, that planning departments in local planning authorities will face a Herculean task to ensure that their already hard-pressed IT services comply with all the new requirements.
Secondly, many local planning authorities will already have purchased software and tools that may ultimately not be approved under the powers provided by clause 78. As such, proposed new clause 32 explicitly specifies that where local planning authorities have made investments in planning data software that is incompatible with the changes sought, the Secretary of State will provide compensation for the additional cost incurred by its replacement.
There is widespread support—if not enthusiasm—in both the public and private sectors for the digital transformation of our planning system. There is also an obvious need to ensure that the requirements in this chapter that will facilitate that transformation can be enacted in a way that will not add further burdens to already overstretched local planning authorities. I trust that the Government accept as much and we will hear from the Minister that he is content to make these changes to the Bill.
Tim Farron
This is a good and wise amendment that looks at the additional responsibilities placed on planning departments and how important it is that the Government ensure adequate resourcing for these new functions so that the digitisation of the planning system is performed adequately. It really opens a window on the wider issue that the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich rightly highlighted into the staffing, resourcing and competence of planning departments across the country.
The Bill introduces many measures—perhaps many more than some of us would like. How frustrating will it be to developers, proposers, local residents, members of councils and local communities—everyone—if it turns out that the new powers and functions that might come about simply cannot be enacted? We see around the country a reduction in the quality of planning decisions, not because planners are not good people but because there are too few of them.
There is not the capacity for planners to go and spend a semi-formal hour with a potential developer or householder to scope out what may or may not be possible. That would save people putting in an application that was always doomed to fail, or ensure that an application is more likely to be in line with planning policy and the wishes of the local community. We get bad decisions that end up being appealed, which is more expensive for everybody and sucks all the energy out of that planning department when it should be focused on trying to preserve and promote the community’s priorities.
We will have many debates—we have had some already—about what planning provisions should be in the Bill and what powers local communities should have. It will all be pretty meaningless if there is no way whatsoever of ensuring that the new provisions are enforceable.
Matthew Pennycook
I am glad the Minister understands the concerns that the amendment seeks to highlight. I welcome his recognition that local planning authorities need to be well equipped and supported to make the changes. In all honesty, I was not reassured by his answer, which I found to be quite vague. We know that, as has already been said, local planning authorities face real challenges in resourcing new capacity. That is a pre-existing problem. They are being given a set of new responsibilities and there has been no reassurance that we will get any additional financing for those new burdens. I do not intend to press the amendment to a vote, but we will come back to the issue of adequate financial resourcing for some of the changes that the Bill seeks to enact many times during its passage. 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
The planning information that is currently published is often difficult to access, inconsistently presented and hard to use, limiting its wider usefulness. Clause 77, in combination with clause 75, changes that by requiring standardised information to be openly available to anyone for free. The Secretary of State will set the licence under which the information is to be published and regulations will specify the information to which the requirements apply. There is a limitation on the information that may be made available to ensure that sensitive data, such as where the planning authority has an obligation of confidence or where data protection legislation applies, cannot be subject to the regulations.
We believe opening planning data will drive greater productivity and efficiency levels across the housing, planning and land sectors, which will deliver significant benefits to a wider range of groups. Benefits include time savings, the development of new tools, and increasing accessibility to the information required for decision making.
Without accessible planning information, both local and central Government cannot make faster, better-informed decisions to meet the needs of local communities and understand national demands and challenges. Likewise, the development of innovative digital tools and services that better engage communities and allow planners to work more productively is hampered.
Open, consistent and comparable planning information will unlock a more transparent planning system where communities can better understand, contribute to and, as a result, have greater confidence in planning for their areas. I therefore commend the clause to the committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 77 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 78
Power to require use of approved planning data software in England
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move amendment 68, in clause 78, page 87, line 10, at end insert—
“(1A) On the day any regulations under this section are laid before Parliament the Secretary of State must publish an accompanying statement setting out—
(a) the reasons why the planning data software in question has not been approved for use by the Secretary of State,
(b) the steps that the Government has taken to ensure that the decision not to approve the planning data software in question does not undermine effective competition in the procurement of planning data software in England.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish a statement explaining why the provisions in this section were used to restrict or prevent the use of planning data software and setting out the steps taken to avoid the creation of a Government-granted monopoly in planning data software.
Clause 78 permits the use of regulations to restrict or prohibit relevant planning authorities from using software not approved by the Secretary of State. We have just considered one possible adverse outcome of the use of these powers, namely that local planning authorities who have purchased software and tools may find that in the future they are not approved for use and that their investment has been made redundant as a result. However, we are concerned that another adverse consequence might potentially flow from the use of the powers and that is the limitation of fair and open competition among software providers.
Amendment 68 would add to clause 78 a requirement that on the day any regulations under the clause are laid, the Secretary of State must publish an accompanying statement setting out, first, the reasons why the planning data software in question has not been approved for use and, secondly, the steps that the Government have taken to ensure that the decision not to approve does not undermine effective competition in the procurement of planning data software in England.
The effect of the amendment would not be to prevent the Secretary of State from exercising the powers in clause 78 but simply to ensure that the holder of that office properly justifies their use and has due regard to the need to maintain healthy market competition. The reasoning behind the amendment is that as benign as the provisions in clause 78 might appear to be, in the sense that taken at face value they are merely a means of rolling out new data standards and enforcing standardisation, they could, deliberately or inadvertently, create a Government-granted oligopoly or monopoly in planning data software. We believe the Government should be clear that the intention of the powers is not to foster an oligopolistic or even, dare I say, a monopolistic market in planning data software.
I appreciate fully that the Government are bound by public procurement rules, albeit ones that they intend to overhaul by means of the Procurement Bill that is progressing through the other place, and that within the general procurement framework there is a specific set of rules and handbooks for technology procurement. However, the powers in clause 78 strike us as so expansive, enabling Ministers by regulation to restrict or prevent the use or creation of software used by planning authorities to process planning data, that a further check to their use is required.
Assuming the Government do not wish to fetter rigorous competition in the planning data software market, amendment 68 should be an easy one for the Minister to accept and I hope to hear that he will do so.
Mr Jones
We wholeheartedly support the principle embodied by the amendment, although I think there may be a slight misunderstanding about the mechanics of clause 78. Clause 78 aims to ensure planning authorities are supported by modern software that complies with the requirements created by our digital reforms. We will set out clear criteria that the Secretary of State must then apply in deciding whether to approve any given software to which the regulations apply.
The expectations of the Secretary of State will therefore be public and clear before any software is submitted. Likewise, the reasoning of the Secretary of State’s decision to grant or withhold approval will necessarily be the compliance with those criteria. In that context, a statement on individual software decisions would be superfluous and could risk inappropriately disclosing commercially sensitive information. That could, for example, deter submission for approval, undermining the intention of the provision.
That brings me to the second aspect of the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich’s amendment—the statement about the effect on competition in the software market. Regulations could not lawfully be made, nor could decisions lawfully be taken, under that power with the aim of conferring a monopoly. The Secretary of State cannot use the powers other than impartially between software suppliers to foster the innovative market our reforms are designed to achieve. The criteria for approval will be informed and refined by continuing—and continual—work with planning authorities and software suppliers on trial planning software. We have, for example, already funded planning authorities for the creation of new software and supported programmes for local authorities to improve their existing development management software.
We have started to engage with the technology sector through local authority-led pilots and pathfinders. We will continue to engage meaningfully with them and others to establish a realistic adoption timetable for any planning data software that the Secretary of State may wish to approve for use by planning authorities. I hope that provides sufficient reassurance to the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich to allow him to withdraw his amendment.
Matthew Pennycook
I am grateful to the Minister for that response. I note that he only said that the clause would prevent the advent of a monopoly and not an oligopoly. I still worry, reading the text of the Bill, that we could inadvertently find that the Government restrict what software can be used by local authorities. That said, I welcome the clarification and reassurances that the Minister has provided. On that basis, 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
We have already discussed some aspects of the clause in relation to amendment 68. Many planning authorities are reliant on outdated and expensive software and systems that do not work with one another, forcing manual re-entry of information while locking that information away in formats that are not reusable. Clause 78 allows the Secretary of State to change that entrenched status quo. Without the right software to support processing standardised data, the benefits from the chapter across the planning system will be thwarted.
Clause 78 relies upon, and will therefore follow from, the introduction of data standards set under clause 75. Those data standards will take time to develop. The aim of our reforms is to create a virtuous circle whereby better software enables better information to be published, which in turn allows better tools to be developed for planning authorities. As such, it is not our intention to require approval for all planning data software. We will work with planning authorities and the technology sector to determine where and when the use of that power will most benefit the planning system. The clause enables the creation of the effective, high-quality system that the public rightly expect of Government at all levels. I commend clause 78 to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 78 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 79
Disclosure of planning data does not infringe copyright in certain cases
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
I have a few questions for the Minister about the three clauses. Clause 79 provides that a local planning authority that makes planning data available to a person does not, in doing so, infringe copyright if making the data available is necessary for certain purposes such as the development of planning data software. Will the Minister explain the rationale for restricting the circumstances where planning data will not be in breach of copyright solely to those purposes set out in subsections (1)(a) and (b)? Will he also comment on whether he foresees any other circumstances where it may be desirable for copyright to be limited, for example in relation to academic research?
Clause 80 stipulates that the Secretary of State may only make planning data regulations that contain provision within devolved competence of the Scottish Parliament, the Senedd or the Northern Ireland Assembly after consultation. I presume—the Minister can correct me—that legislative consent is not required for the provisions, but perhaps he could clarify what engagement his Department has had with the devolved Administrations about the planning data aspects of the Bill.
Finally, clause 81 provides definitions of key terms. Will the Minister confirm that the definition of relevant planning authority to include any public body with functions relating to
“planning or development in England”,
as laid out in paragraph (n)(i), covers community and parish councils, and neighbourhood planning forums? If so, what support, if any, will they be provided with to ensure that any plans or priority statements they produce conform with the regulations, given they are generally voluntary organisations?
Mr Jones
On the point about devolving planning to neighbourhood planning level, I expect that support will be provided by local planning authorities in that regard.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the type of copyright material that is in scope of infringement protection. Any information with the purpose of approving and maintaining or upgrading the planning software that falls under the definition of the planning data defined within the Bill, in which copyright subsists, is in scope of the power. One such example is architectural drawings, where the planning authorities are required to consult on new proposed developments.
The hon. Gentleman raised one other point. I am not able to confirm at the moment but will certainly write to him about the discussions that my predecessor has had with the devolved Administrations.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 79 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 80 and 81 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 82
Development plans: content
Rachael Maskell
I beg to move amendment 117, in clause 82, page 91, line 8, at end insert—
“(3A) After subsection (4) insert—
‘(4A) A local planning authority must review and update the development plan no less regularly than once every five years.’”.
This amendment would require local authorities to review and update the development plan at least every five years.
This is a probing amendment and I would be grateful for the Minister’s response. York has not had a local plan for 76 years—that is another issue that will no doubt come across the Minister’s desk—and I am trying to work through why that has been the case. There has often been a complex and rapidly changing political context in the city.
We seem to talk about local plans, development plans, minerals and waste plans, transport plans and so on as events, rather than in the context of a place’s evolution. Therefore, if there is a 10-year period—or even longer in the case of York—between plans being updated, the task is so great that it can be very challenging indeed. Thinking about how we can get some sequencing and timelines for how data is produced and how development and supplementary plans are put in place could improve the process.
I have some observations about why it has not worked in York and about the task ahead. For our city, the situation has presented many challenges because developers have taken advantage. It has caused a lot of difficulty over the years, but it has also dominated the political environment and destabilised our city, rather than stabilised the way forward.
I want to touch on the supplementary plans, which feed into the data, and to think about the pace at which things are moving forward. The local transport plan, which feeds into our development plan, dates back to 2011, and the data was gathered two years earlier, so it is already 13 years out of date. That is informing the local plan, which is being discussed with the inspectors is this week. Thirteen years ago, we did not have micromobility, e-scooters and e-bikes. Electric vehicles were not really a thing and bus services were very different. Even our major roads have changed over that time, and we have seen deepening congestion of late.
We now know that climate pressures are bearing heavily on our environment, whether in respect of housing, economic development or transport infrastructure. Anybody who was at the briefing yesterday with Sir Patrick Vallance will understand how pressing it is that we address the climate issue at this moment. Leaving plans for too long could mean that they are not responsive to the call of our time, particularly on climate issues. They will also not recognise the changing environment we are in. I have to hand it to the Government: some of the things they are putting forward on national infrastructure and housing are ambitious. Whether they can deliver is another question altogether, but they are certainly putting out a rapid change, and we need to reflect that in our planning system.
A supplementary plan that is 13 years out of date is not responsive to the logjams that we see in York today—the increase in the volume of traffic and the consequences of that on our air quality—and developments that have happened. We have an outline plan for the York Central site, with 6,500 jobs and 2,500 dwellings. We are talking about placing this new city within York in the middle of our old medieval city, as well as the infrastructure routes feeding into it, but with transport planning that is 13 years out of date, we will rapidly see that bringing all those cars into the city centre will just create a car park. Therefore, it is not responsive enough to the reality of what we are doing. At rush hour, York will come to a complete standstill, yet these supplementary plans are meant to inform what is happening.
I could talk about environmental plans and what is happening on flooding. Fortunately, we have been putting in mitigation to address the flooding challenges in our city, but the Environment Agency tells me that we have 17 years until we are challenged again, unless upstream infrastructure is put in place and we take water out of the rivers, improve soil quality and so on. We really need to think about the rapid changes and pressing issues that we face.
Therefore, we need some time. I put five years as a suggested time period for us to start thinking about how we move on to the next stage of our planning. That is why it is a probing amendment. I am trying to build a culture in our planning system of a thinking process, as opposed to having rigid timetables.
Our major routes around York will have an impact on the way traffic flows in our city, whether it is the dualling of the ring road or the widening of some of the A roads—not in my constituency but on the outside of York. At the same time, we have a city centre that has been declared car-free. That will have a massive impact too, with blue badge holders being locked out of their city. We have changes of routes through various parts of the city, building pressure and volume on some of the core routes through York.
It is important to recognise the pace of the change that is occurring and to think about how we can best address that in the planning system. We can do that through a timetable, and that is why I have said it is a probing amendment. We have to start addressing what is happening on the planet around us in the context of planning. In particular, I am thinking about scheduling and the evolution approach, as opposed to this being an event. It certainly will be an event in York if we do get that local plan over the line. [Laughter.] I am sure the Minister will want to come and celebrate with us all at that moment.
A conversation is needed about planning and about how we bring together our supplementary plans—our minerals and waste plan, and our local transport plan—in sequence for a local plan process. More thinking needs to be done. I thought it was necessary to table an amendment to make that point today and to see how the Minister responds, because this may be something we want to explore at later stages of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for York Central on making a strong case for her amendment. The problem she highlights is a very real one—that of out-of-date plans based on out-of-date data and analysis. The Opposition believe that local development plans are vital ways that communities can shape and agree a vision for future development in their area and properly account for the specific housing, employment and infrastructure needs within them. We want to see the proportion of England covered by a local plan increase. We believe it is important that each plan should evolve over time to take into account changing circumstances affecting the area in question, whether it be changes in the level of housing need or new infrastructure requirements.
Paragraph 33 of the national planning policy framework makes it clear that:
“Policies in local plans and spatial development strategies should be reviewed to assess whether they need updating at least once every five years, and should then be updated as necessary.”
I appreciate the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for York Central that this aspect of national guidance should be put on a statutory footing in the Bill. We are certainly sympathetic to that, and I hope the Minister responds to her amendment favourably, with the proviso that, as with so many other measures in the Bill, sufficient resources flow down to local authority planning departments to enable them to carry out a review and an updating exercise at least once every five years, given how onerous a task it is to prepare a local plan or to revise it.
Tim Farron
I, too, think this is an important amendment, as it allows us to get a sense of how important the Government consider development plans to be and what support they will give communities to not just have them, but ensure that they mean something. In Cumbria, both at local authority level and in the national parks, we consider development plans to be important. Not having a development plan means basically sub-letting it to the market. The reality is that the developers decide what gets built in people’s communities. We end up seeing development for demand, not for need. In a community like ours—pretty much anything can be built in the lakes and the dales in Cumbria and there would be a market for it—we do not get the buildings that are needed to meet the requirements of a community that will otherwise dissipate, and is doing so.
I suspect one reason a number of authorities are reluctant to have a development plan, or are not as committed to having one as they might be, is that they often think they are not enforceable. Very often, a development plan will outline the priorities in a community. I mentioned earlier the Yorkshire Dales national park authority boldly saying only the other week that it wants to ensure that every new development needs to be 100% for permanent occupancy. That is a brilliant endeavour, which I totally support, but there is a great deal of doubt as to whether the authority will ever be able to enforce it. In fact, I think we all know that it will not be able to do so, unless the Government were to change the law through this or some other process.
Mr Jones
The Government want the planning system to be truly plan-led, to give communities more certainty that the right homes will be built in the right places. To achieve that, plans will be given more weight in decision making. They will be faster to produce and easier to navigate and understand. Currently, communities and applicants can face an alphabet soup of planning documents, leaving all but the most seasoned planning professionals pretty baffled.
The clause provides an important change to the definition of the development plan set out in section 38(2) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. It outlines the elements that, collectively, will comprise the development plan for any given area of land. It replaces the terminology used to describe constituent documents to align with that used in schedule 7 to the Bill, as introduced by clause 87. It paves the way for a system without local development documents, local development frameworks, area action plans, and local plan part 1s and part 2s. Instead, we will have a simpler approach, with specific references to neighbourhood plans, local plans, spatial development strategies, supplementary plans, and minerals and waste plans, as defined in schedule 7.
That change will leave communities and applicants in no doubt about which are the key planning documents for an area, and will lay the foundation for the later reforms of the planning system through this Bill. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 82 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 83
Role of development plan and national policy in England
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move amendment 86, in clause 83, page 91, line 28, leave out lines 28 to 30 and insert—
“(5C) But the development plan has precedence over any national development management policy in the event of any conflict between the two.”
This amendment gives precedence to local development plans over national policies, reversing the current proposal in inserted subsection (5C).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 57, in clause 83, page 91, line 30, leave out “national development management policy” and insert “the development plan”.
This amendment would require any conflict between a local development plan and a national development management strategy to be resolved in favour of the local development plan.
Matthew Pennycook
In moving to chapter 2 of part 3, “Development plans and national policy”, we confront an altogether more contentious set of issues than planning data, as the new Minister will be acutely aware.
Let me start by making it clear that, in general terms, we welcome efforts to strengthen development plans. Building on clause 82, which updates existing definitions and references to provisions in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 to reflect changes proposed in the Bill, clause 83 makes amendments to that Act in two important ways relating to development plans.
First, proposed new subsection (5B) provides that any determination of a planning matter under the planning Acts must be made in accordance with the development plan and any new national development management policies, unless
“material considerations strongly indicate otherwise”.
In other words, departures from a plan will require stronger reasons than at present, thereby giving residents more confidence that plans will be adhered to and that any safeguards woven into the fabric of such plans will be respected. That is an entirely sensible measure, and we fully support it.
Secondly, however, that measure is immediately undermined by proposed new subsection (5C), which stipulates that at the point an individual planning application is determined, if there is any conflict between a formulated development plan and any new national development management policy that the Government might introduce,
“the conflict must be resolved in favour of the national development management policy.”
The Bill makes it plain that we are not talking only about significant conflicts between local and neighbourhood plans and national development management policies.
Proposed new subsection (5C) is clear that conflict “to any extent” must be resolved in favour of national policy. That is a far more problematic measure that the sensible strengthening of plans provided for by proposed new subsection (5B), in that it clearly accords precedence and a large measure of control to the national over the local. The result is that, in the clause, the Government are giving with one hand while taking away with the other, making it harder to deviate from the local development plan at the same time as giving themselves powers to exert greater control over them.
The amendment would replace proposed new subsection (5C) and, in doing so, reverse the proposition currently in the Bill by making it clear that the development plan would have precedence over any national development management policy in the event of any conflict between the two. We believe that that is one of the most essential changes required in revising the Bill, and I hope that the Committee will forgive me if I explain why in some detail.
The Government contend that the creation of national development measurement policies will help to make local plans simpler and easier to produce by providing greater certainty on the question of whether policies in any individual development plan are consistent with national policy. There is a glaring paradox there, however, because to simplify all local plans sufficiently, NDMPs would have to cover an extensive range of issues in enough detail to be readily applicable to the huge diversity of local circumstances found across England. If they do ultimately cover the broad range of diverse policies that apply “in most areas”—as the policy paper suggests they will—they risk becoming meaningless.
Nor is it clear how NDMPs will actually enable the Government to prevent local planning authorities from duplicating large swathes of national policy in local plans. We should bear in mind that the national planning policy framework already instructs local planning authorities not to duplicate national policy, but most authorities—understandably—like to make it clear how national policies apply to their local area, which highlights the fact that one person’s duplication is another person’s tailoring to local circumstances.
When the Minister responds, could he explain—referring back to the debate we had earlier today—whether duplication of national policy in development plans is an issue that the Government believe can be addressed by the processing of planning data as provided for by chapter 1? Are clauses 75 to 81 intended, in part, to be a means of making local plans shorter? I struggle to see how NDMPs will, in and of themselves, lead to a simplification of local planning.
In any case, when it comes to local plans, the laudable objective of simplicity and certainty should not also require that development plans be subordinate to national policy, as clause 83(2)(5C) clearly renders them in the event of any conflict between the two. The Committee might wonder why such subordination is problematic, because should national policy not be clearly set by central Government, with local planning authorities given no discretion whatever to depart from it? Well, I would make two points in response.
First, we have absolutely no idea from the Bill, from the accompanying notes, or from the non-existent impact assessment, what might be covered by a national development management policy in future, other than that they are likely to relate to policies that, as set out in the policy paper, “apply in most areas”. The fact that none of us knows what future NDMPs might cover is deeply problematic.
As Victoria Hills, the Royal Town Planning Institute chief executive, put it to the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee on Monday 20 June:
“As I sit before you today I could not tell you if 20%, 50% or 80% of local plans are due to be nationalised.”
That is an incredibly concerning state of affairs given the powers provided for by clause 84, which we will come to next, and it should trouble every member of the Committee.
The new Minister is a diligent parliamentarian, and I know that he will have read his brief over the weekend. I fully expect him to stand up and argue that the concerns expressed across the House about this matter are misplaced; that there is no need to worry because NDMPs will only ever relate to areas of policy that are naturally and incontrovertibly matters for national decision making; and that there are already legal protections in place that simply need to be interpreted for planning—policy relating to aspects of the protection of heritage assets, for example.
However, I say gently to the Minister, who I am incredibly fond of, that he will not be around forever. Indeed, as things stand, he is unlikely to make it past early September. Even if he does, on the basis of the average tenure of a Housing Minister under Conservative-led Governments since 2010, whoever replaces him will, by my reckoning, have until the summer of next year before they are also moved on. I am afraid that any personal reassurances that Ministers might offer—as the now previous Secretary of State did, including to the Select Committee—count for little. What matters is what the legislation says, and it offers us no guide to what will be covered by NDMPs.
Let us take as an example a particularly contentious area of policy: the green belt. Will rules on development in the green belt be the subject of an NDMP? If so, what will they specify? At the moment, we have no idea. That matters for the simple reason that there are no limits in the Bill on the scope of the national development management policies; the legislation enables them to be about anything that is common to most areas, which brings me to my second point.
As the Bill specifies no limit to what might be covered by an NDMP, there is potentially no corresponding limit to central interference in areas previously considered to be firmly within the preserve of local decision making. There is therefore no certainty whatever that the changes proposed will mean that local plans will deal with local problems, and national policy will deal with national problems.
Mr Jones
I am not in the position to give the hon. Lady that example today. As she knows, such policies are often developed through the process of making primary legislation, and then are developed beyond the process we have before us today. I take her comment.
As part of the reform, we are also introducing statutory national development management policies. Those policies would sit alongside those in local plans when relevant planning decisions are made, with clear statutory weight. National development management policies will be primarily those nationally important policies used for making decisions. The hon. Member for South Shields should note that a current example is green belt protection.
There are several reasons why we think national development management policies are an important and positive reform. First, they will make it easier for local authorities to produce their local plans. By dealing with universal planning considerations nationally and giving them the same weight as the plan, local authorities will no longer need to repeat those matters to ensure they have sufficient force.
Secondly, introducing national development management policies means that local plans can focus on matters of genuine local importance to communities—saving time and money for authorities, and making plans more locally relevant and easier to use. Thirdly, it will be easier for applicants to align their proposals with national and local policy requirements—something which we expect to be of particular benefit to small and medium-sized builders.
Fourthly, it will provide greater assurance that important policy safeguards that apply nationally, or to significant parts of England, such as protections for areas at risk of flooding, policy on climate change, and policies to protect the green belt, will be upheld with statutory weight and applied quickly across the country, including when any changes are made.
That brings me to the heart of the issue outlined by the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich about the national development management policy taking precedence over local plans. It is extremely important to reiterate that where we have local plans that become very out of date, it is important that the protections set out in national policy continue to be reflected in the decisions.
Finally, this framework of basic national policies can guide relevant planning decisions if a local plan is significantly out of date and cannot be relied upon in certain respects. Introducing national development management policies and giving them statutory weight is, therefore, important to creating much greater clarity around the role of national policy in decisions. Increasing this clarity is crucial to reducing the number of planning appeals local authorities face, and therefore reducing the number of unanticipated developments communities face on their doorstep as a result. That point has been made a number of times this afternoon. That clarity also reduces the cost associated with those appeals, enabling local authorities to divert their resources to planning positively for their area. I think I can safely say that that is an outcome that we all want to deliver.
The amendment deals specifically with what to do in the event of a conflict between national development management policies and the development plan when a planning decision must be made in accordance with both. As I have indicated, I believe the current clause is a necessary safeguard in situations where plans are out of date and important national policies on the environment or other matters need to be reflected fully in decisions.
To explain that more fully, some local plans are woefully out of date. We heard one example in Committee this afternoon and there are a number of examples across the country where the plans, although not quite as out of date as the one mentioned by the hon. Member for York Central, have been out of date since the 1990s.
Matthew Pennycook
How does the Minister believe that this clause specifically will address the fact that there is not sufficient coverage of local plans across England? How will the provisions in the clause incentivise people to take up a local plan if they have not already done so?
Mr Jones
We have just discussed a clause that will compel local authorities to put in place an up-to-date local plan every five years. What we are discussing here is making sure that, where we get outliers and places with out-of-date local plans, green belt protection and other such things can be maintained through the national development management policies. This is a crucial point. We wish to use national policy to drive higher standards where those standards at the moment are not as they should be, especially on the environment and to tackle climate change. It is important that those policies can take precedence in the event of conflict with the out-of-date policies in plans.
I would nevertheless expect such conflicts to be limited in future, because we are making it easier to produce plans—we have discussed a number of situations today in which that would be the case—and because the Bill makes sure that new plans will be drawn up consistently with national policies, including the new national development management policies.
As I said at the outset, I appreciate the strength of feeling on this issue. Last week, the previous Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), published his response to the letter from the Chair of the levelling-up Select Committee in which clarification was requested on this question. I have spoken to the new Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), who took office this week. His view is the same as that expressed in the letter. We will provide a copy of that letter to members of the Committee.
We are also committed to providing more information about how we expect national development management policies to work in the future, which is why we plan to publish shortly the prospectus I referred to earlier, if not as articulately as I could have, so that we can look at our approach to the preparation of that prospectus. We will welcome views from hon. Members. With those assurances, I hope that the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Matthew Pennycook
Given how long the Minister has been in post, I do not blame him, but the arguments he makes in defence of clause 83(2), and proposed new subsection (5C) in particular, are the same ones we have heard over many months. Frankly, I do not think they stack up. I note with interest the points he made about the new Secretary of State taking the exact same view. I do not think his line that it would be counterproductive to amend this aspect of the Bill will hold.
I do not intend to press amendment 86 to a vote, because we will almost certainly come back to this issue on Report, but I just ask the Minister to go away and satisfy himself that the powers in subsection (2) are appropriate and justified. Will he think through, as the hon. Member for Buckingham said, not only the implications for democratic control of planning, engagement and scrutiny of planning, and the impact on trust and confidence in the planning system, which we know is an issue, but the implications in terms of innovation, undermining devolution deals and the legal delays that I am certain will come if the Government try to use this power? They will have to think about this issue again, and we will certainly come back to it on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Greg Smith
I have heard the assurances that the Minister has given but agree with some of the reticence of the shadow Minister, so I urge my hon. Friend to consider these points very carefully over the summer. I will not press amendment 57 to a vote right now, but I underline the importance of getting this right for the whole Bill and its meaning.
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move amendment 98, in clause 83, page 91, line 30, at end insert—
“, subject to subsection (5D).
(5D) But any conflict must be resolved in favour of the development plan in an area if—
(a) if, in relation to it, regulations under section 16 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 have been made to provide for the town and country planning function and the highways function and any functions exercisable under the Environment Act 2021 of a county council or a district council that is exercisable in relation to an area which is within a county combined authority area to be exercisable by the CCA in relation to the CCA’s area,
(b) if, in relation to it, regulations under section 17 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 have been made to provide for at least one function of another public body that is exercisable in relation to an area which is within a county combined authority area to be exercisable by the CCA in relation to the CCA’s area,
(c) it has a joint spatial development strategy, or
(d) it is in Greater London.”
This amendment would place limits on the primacy of national development management policies over the development plan where a Combined County Authority had been handed planning, highways, environmental powers and at least one function of another public body under a devolution deal, in areas covered by a joint spatial development strategy and in Greater London.
This is a probing amendment. Given that the Government have just declined to accept amendments 83 and 57, and reconfirmed their intention to have national development management policies override local development plans in the event of any conflict between them at the point of determination, amendment 98 is designed simply to try to elicit from the Government whether they will consider allowing any specific exemptions to that general principle.
The amendment would do so by specifying that any conflict between an NDMP and a local development plan at the point of determination must be resolved in favour of the latter in an area where a combined county authority has had key powers transferred to it under a devolution deal, where a joint spatial development strategy has been agreed, or in Greater London. The idea is that an exemption from the primacy of national policy in the form of NDMPs would be the reward, so to speak, for agreeing a devolution deal with the full panoply of powers available or for engaging in strategic planning by putting a spatial development strategy in place—or, it should be said, for taking part in a new joint spatial development strategy across authority boundaries.
Let me explain my reasoning further by using the example of an area where an SDS or a joint SDS might be taken forward. As the Minister will know, once a spatial development strategy is in place, it provides for a strategic framework for the development plan or plans, which should in theory supersede or take primacy over NDMPs that the Government might happen to bring forward.
While we remain of the view that no local development plan should be made subordinate to national planning policies in the form of NDMPs, if the Government are determined to ensure that they are—it sounded that way from the Minister’s comments in the previous debate—we believe that they should at least consider exempting from that centralising approach areas that have proactively taken on greater powers, including powers to plan strategically, so that they can use them to the full to reflect local priorities and innovate, having regard to national policy but not being unduly constrained by it.
On that basis, I hope that the Minister will give our amendment due consideration.
Mr Jones
I thank the hon. Member for his amendment 98, which relates to higher-tier authorities with planning powers. During the debate on amendments 86 and 57, I set out our case as to why it may be necessary for national development management policies to outweigh the development plan in the event of a conflict. Amendment 98 would prevent that from happening where there is a conflict in an area covered by a Mayor or a combined authority.
I understand that the argument behind the amendment is that it would support our efforts to promote devolution by exempting Mayors and combined authorities from any situation in which national development management policies might have precedence over their own. While I understand that argument, it is not one that we are able to agree with at this point. It makes complete sense for Mayors and combined authorities to use their strategic planning powers to make policies that support proper planning in their areas, but it does not follow that those should automatically outweigh national development management policies, given what those policies aim to do.
National development management policies will be nationally important policies, such as for the green belt or flood protection, as I have already mentioned. It remains important that those are not duplicated through strategic plans, which should restrict the chances of conflict occurring in the first place, especially where plans have been kept up to date. More details on what national development management policies could look like will be set out in the prospectus coming this summer, which will also indicate the scope for policies in plans to address matters that are locally important, or of strategic importance in the case of a Mayor or combined authority.
The other arguments made in relation to amendment 87 also apply here. There will be occasions when circumstances arise that mean the Government need to make an urgent change. That became apparent during the pandemic, when we had to act very quickly to protect temporarily closed theatres and live music venues from the threat of development. In those circumstances, it is right that national development management policy is able to override the development plan, even where there is a strategic plan-making body.
I hope that the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich understands those reasons and will withdraw his amendment.
Matthew Pennycook
The Minister will appreciate that I am, naturally, disappointed that the Government will not countenance any exemption from the precedence that clause 83 affords to national development management policies, but I do not intend to press the amendment to a Division. The root of the problem is the powers in clause 83, rather than the specific issue raised by the amendment. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss that schedule 6 be the Sixth schedule to the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
I will be extremely brief because a Division is due in the main Chamber, but also because schedule 6 is largely a tidying-up exercise, amending the Town and Country Planning Act to add requirements for local planning authorities to have regard to material considerations in NDMPs when modifying or removing permission, granting outline permission, and enforcement and appeals.
However, reading the schedule prompted two questions in my mind. First, paragraph 12(b) to schedule 6 amends paragraph 8(2) to schedule 4B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to insert paragraph (da), requiring neighbourhood development orders, which implement neighbourhood plans, to be in general conformity with NDMPs. Given that the Government are explicitly legislating in the Bill to ensure that neighbourhood development orders are consistent with NDMPs, can the Minister give the Committee a sense of what kind of national policies covered by an NDMP would have direct relevance to extremely local, sub-district plans, such that conformity with them needs to be required by the Bill?
Secondly, paragraph 15 to schedule 6 amends section 337(2) of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 to insert new paragraph (ca), which adds NDMPs to the list of matters that may require modification of the Mayor of London’s spatial development strategy prior to its publication. Given that the supposed thrust of the Bill is to enable greater devolution to regional authorities and leaders, could the Minister explain the rationale for making the London spatial development strategy subservient to centrally mandated policy?
Mr Jones
On the hon. Gentleman’s point about neighbourhood plans, as I have mentioned a number of times, a prospectus will be brought forward in the summer to explain how national development management policies may work. I urge him to wait and see those documents. When he sees the prospectus, he will no doubt provide a response. [Interruption.]
Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Fourteenth sitting) Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateDepartment: Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities
Matthew Pennycook
Main Page: Matthew Pennycook (Labour - Greenwich and Woolwich)Department Debates - View all Matthew Pennycook's debates with the Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities
Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Fourteenth sitting)
Matthew Pennycook ExcerptsThursday 14th July 2022
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 14 July 2022 - (14 Jul 2022)
The Chair
Before we begin, I have a few preliminary reminders for the Committee. Please switch electronic devices to silent. No food or drink is permitted during sittings of this Committee, except for the water provided. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members emailed their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
Clause 84
National development management policies: meaning
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 87, in clause 84, page 92, line 9, leave out lines 9 to 16 and insert—
“(2) Before designating a policy as a national development management policy for the purposes of this Act the Secretary of State must carry out an appraisal of the sustainability of that policy.
(3) A policy may be designated as a national development management policy for the purposes of this Act only if the consultation and publicity requirements set out in clause 38ZB, and the parliamentary requirements set out in clause 38ZC, have been complied with in relation to it, and—
(a) the consideration period for the policy has expired without the House of Commons resolving during that period that the statement should not be proceeded with, or
(b) the policy has been approved by resolution of the House of Commons—
(i) after being laid before Parliament under section 38ZC, and
(ii) before the end of the consideration period.
(4) In subsection (3) ‘the consideration period’, in relation to a policy, means the period of 21 sitting days beginning with the first sitting day after the day on which the statement is laid before Parliament under section 38ZC, and here ‘sitting day’ means a day on which the House of Commons sits.
(5) A policy may not be designated a national development management policy unless—
(a) it contains explanations of the reasons for the policy, and
(b) in particular, includes an explanation of how the policy set out takes account of Government policy relating to the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change.
(6) The Secretary of State must arrange for the publication of a national policy statement.
38ZB Consultation and publicity
(1) This section sets out the consultation and publicity requirements referred to in sections 38ZA(3) and 38ZD(7).
(2) The Secretary of State must carry out such consultation, and arrange for such publicity, as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate in relation to the proposal. This is subject to subsections (4) and (5).
(3) In this section ‘the proposal’ means—
(a) the policy that the Secretary of State proposes to designate as a national development management policy for the purposes of this Act or
(b) (as the case may be) the proposed amendment (see section 38ZD).
(4) The Secretary of State must consult such persons, and such descriptions of persons, as may be prescribed.
(5) If the policy set out in the proposal identifies one or more locations as suitable (or potentially suitable) for a specified description of development, the Secretary of State must ensure that appropriate steps are taken to publicise the proposal.
(6) The Secretary of State must have regard to the responses to the consultation and publicity in deciding whether to proceed with the proposal.
38ZC Parliamentary requirements
(1) This section sets out the parliamentary requirements referred to in sections 38ZA(3) and 38ZD(7).
(2) The Secretary of State must lay the proposal before Parliament.
(3) In this section ‘the proposal’ means—
(a) the policy that the Secretary of State proposes to designate as a national development management policy for the purposes of this Act or
(b) (as the case may be) the proposed amendment (see section 38ZD).
(4) Subsection (5) applies if, during the relevant period—
(a) either House of Parliament makes a resolution with regard to the proposal, or
(b) a committee of either House of Parliament makes recommendations with regard to the proposal.
(5) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a statement setting out the Secretary of State's response to the resolution or recommendations.
(6) The relevant period is the period specified by the Secretary of State in relation to the proposal.
(7) The Secretary of State must specify the relevant period in relation to the proposal on or before the day on which the proposal is laid before Parliament under subsection (2).
(8) After the end of the relevant period, but not before the Secretary of State complies with subsection (5) if it applies, the Secretary of State must lay the proposal before Parliament.
38ZD Review of national development management policies
(1) The Secretary of State must review a national development management policy whenever the Secretary of State thinks it appropriate to do so.
(2) A review may relate to all or part of a national development management policy.
(3) In deciding when to review a national development management policy the Secretary of State must consider whether—
(a) since the time when the policy was first published or (if later) last reviewed, there has been a significant change in any circumstances on the basis of which any of the policy set out in the statement was decided,
(b) the change was not anticipated at that time, and
(c) if the change had been anticipated at that time, any of the policy set out would have been materially different.
(4) In deciding when to review part of a national development management policy (‘the relevant part’) the Secretary of State must consider whether—
(a) since the time when the relevant part was first published or (if later) last reviewed, there has been a significant change in any circumstances on the basis of which any of the policy set out in the relevant part was decided,
(b) the change was not anticipated at that time, and
(c) if the change had been anticipated at that time, any of the policy set out in the relevant part would have been materially different.
(5) After completing a review of all or part of a national development management policy the Secretary of State must do one of the following—
(a) amend the policy;
(b) withdraw the policy's designation as a national development management policy;
(c) leave the policy as it is.
(6) Before amending a national development management policy the Secretary of State must carry out an appraisal of the sustainability of the policy set out in the proposed amendment.
(7) The Secretary of State may amend a national development management policy only if the consultation and publicity requirements set out in section 38ZB, and the parliamentary requirements set out in section 38ZC, have been complied with in relation to the proposed amendment, and—
(a) the consideration period for the amendment has expired without the House of Commons resolving during that period that the amendment should not be proceeded with, or
(b) the amendment has been approved by resolution of the House of Commons—
(i) after being laid before Parliament under section 38ZA, and
(ii) before the end of the consideration period.
(8) In subsection (7) ‘the consideration period’, in relation to an amendment, means the period of 21 sitting days beginning with the first sitting day after the day on which the amendment is laid before Parliament, and here ‘sitting day’ means a day on which the House of Commons sits.
(9) If the Secretary of State amends a national development management policy, the Secretary of State must—
(a) arrange for the amendment, or the policy as amended, to be published, and
(b) lay the amendment, or the policy as amended, before Parliament.”
This amendment stipulates the process for the Secretary of State to designate and review a national development management policy including minimum public consultation requirements and a process of parliamentary scrutiny based on processes set out in the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) for designating National Policy Statements.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone. We had an extensive debate on Tuesday about the powers provided by clause 83 and the fact that they represent, in our view, an unacceptable centralisation of development management policy and a downgrading of the status and remit of local planning. Clause 84 is important, and the provisions in it relate directly to the previous debate, because it sets out what constitutes a national development management policy and provides the statutory basis for such policies and their operation.
As hon Members will note, the clause provides an extremely broad definition of what a national development management policy is, with proposed new subsection 38ZA(1) clarifying that an NDMP can be anything relating to development or use of land in England that the Secretary of State, by direction, designates as such a policy. Proposed new subsection 38ZA(2) provides for powers that allow the Secretary of State to modify or revoke a national development management policy, and proposed new subsection 38ZA(3) makes it clear that they have to consult about any modification or revocation only if they believe it is appropriate to do so. Given the fact that, as we spent a lengthy period of time considering in the last sitting, it is the Government’s intention that national development management policies will override local development plans in the event of any conflict between the two, we are strongly of the view that the powers clause 84 provides the Secretary of State with are unacceptably broad.
I ask Government Members to look up from their digital devices for a moment and to consider precisely what the Government are proposing here and the future implications of that for their constituencies and the individual communities they represent. These powers would allow a future Minister, of whatever political allegiance, to develop an NDMP that could encompass literally any policy designated by them as relating to development or use of land in England; to determine not to consult on the development of that policy or its modification if they saw fit; and then to use that policy to overrule any local or neighbourhood plan in conflict with it at the stroke of a pen. No one who values localism and the role of effective local and neighbourhood plans in enabling communities to develop a shared vision for their area should feel comfortable with the provisions in the clause.
Amendment 87 simply seeks to impose a degree of transparency and accountability when it comes to the use of the powers, by clarifying the process by which the Secretary of State must designate and review a national development management policy, stipulating, first, that it must include minimum public consultation requirements, just as there are intensive consultation requirements for local plan policies, and secondly, that it must be subject to the same level of parliamentary scrutiny as is currently the case for designating national policy statements, as set out in the Planning Act 2008. It cannot be right that national policies that will have a far greater impact on local communities than any existing national policy statement and that the Government intend will trump local development plans in the event of a conflict can be developed without any public consultation or parliamentary approval process.
If the clause is left unamended, the danger is twofold. First, we fear that the use of the powers will be viewed by the public as yet another means of disempowering communities and hoarding more control at the centre, with all the implications that has for public engagement in a planning system that already suffers from low levels of trust and confidence, with people feeling that their concerns are overlooked and their interests subordinated to other priorities.
Secondly, without a minimum of public consultation or parliamentary oversight in designing NDMPs the Government are far more likely to get it wrong, because they will be developing and designating national policy without appropriate input from communities and their representatives about how the needs and aspirations of their areas are best served. If the Government are determined to force through a suite of NDMPs covering the broad range of policies that, to repeat the test set out in the policy paper, “apply in most areas” and to render local development plans subordinate to them in the event of a conflict, the least they can concede is that the Secretary of State be directed to consult with institutions, authorities and other bodies before making, revoking or modifying NDMPs—not just the initial suite of NDMPs, but any that follow in future years—and to ensure that appropriate parliamentary oversight takes place.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his amendment and the speech he has just made. This is the pivotal part of the whole Bill. It is about ensuring that there is a full and proper process—one that should eliminate risk and maximise the representation of local interest.
We had a really helpful discussion on Tuesday that explored why the amendment was needed in the first place, and I am sure the Minister soon recognised the democratic deficit the Bill would create. The Government have left a hole in the Bill, because it defines the process for establishing a national development management strategy but not the extent to which the strategy could apply, and it also fails to take forward the considerations of our communities. This provision does not belong in primary legislation, and the Minister should reflect today and over the summer on what his Government are trying to do.
The Minister said that he will be developing more detail over the summer, but we are considering the Bill line by line today. As my hon. Friend outlined, his amendment has done the work on how to govern the process for the Minister. First, on designation, there must be an in-depth consultation and any issue must come before Parliament. If an issue is of such magnitude that it requires Government to say that they need to override a local plan, surely there has to be a proper process. After all, planning does not just suddenly occur. I was scratching my head about what would constitute a national emergency that required planning permission. The only thing I could think of—the Minister may correct me—would be a war, but then we would have separate legislation to address that. On Tuesday, the Minister himself struggled to articulate where the thresholds would be and exactly what would constitute such a situation.
I have been thinking further about how our planning process is devised and the importance of co-production within our planning process. Why would this national development management strategy override a process of local planning? There could be no reason. If we think about unpopular things that the Government want to force through, such as mining hydrocarbons, fracking and so on, they should not be happening, because our planet cannot sustain their use. The same applies to building road infrastructure, but then again there are processes and national policy statements that can be made for those things.
High Speed 2 or an airport are perhaps the only other examples. We cannot sustain more air travel because of the climate crisis, and HS2 had a national policy statement —again, it has had its own legislation and processes. I really cannot imagine what is in the Government’s mind that is of such magnitude that it should require the overriding of a local plan and the hopes and aspirations of our local communities. Certainly in my community, local people have not had their aspirations heard in the planning process, because we have not had a local plan. There has been imposition by developers, using the powers they have, and it has just run into conflict, gridlock and pain. I cannot see why a Government would want to excite that in a community.
I am sure the Minister will give serious consideration to this matter, if not today, then through the summer. Opposition Members have made it clear that these clauses are an unnecessary development, but I am sure the Minister will hear that point even louder from Government Members.
Matthew Pennycook
Further to that point, is the Minister seriously saying that a logistical issue about the opening times of supermarkets is the type of policy that will be covered by an NDMP?
Mr Jones
What I am explaining is an example of where powers need to be taken, sometimes at short notice, in the national interest.
To move on, let me turn to parliamentary scrutiny. I have listened to the debate with interest, and I appreciate the points that have been made. The existing provisions for scrutiny of national policy statements, on which I believe the amendment has been modelled, play a particular role, given the way that those statements provide a framework for decisions on nationally significant infrastructure projects, which are decided by Ministers.
National development management policies will serve a broader purpose and will sit alongside policies in locally produced plans as the starting points for considering the suitability of development proposals. They will carry forward the role that successive Governments have played since the 1940s in setting high-level national policy that influences plans and decisions. The sort of things that we envisage them covering are standard policies—for example, avoiding inappropriate development in a green belt and areas at significant risk of flooding or coastal erosion; protecting nationally important habitats and heritage, and assets such as listed buildings; and ensuring that access for pedestrians, cyclists and people with disabilities or reduced mobility is taken into account when assessing development proposals.
As I have said, we have committed to consulting on national development management policies, and this is the first step in the process. The prospectus, which we will publish shortly, will set out more of our initial thinking on the scope of the policies, and the principles for their production. I am sure that the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich will read that document with interest when it comes out, and I hope that it will provide further reassurance on our commitment to transparency and full engagement as we develop the policies.
As the national development management policies will be public, parliamentarians and the public may still hold the Government to account, in the usual way, for the content of those policies. The nature of national development management policies differs from national policy statements, so we believe that the clause strikes the right balance.
We will continue to keep national policies under review by listening closely to colleagues, to the public and to the evidence presented to us, as Governments of all complexions do as a matter of course. It is not clear to me that the amendment would necessarily fit into that context. I have listened to the strength of feeling during the debate, and I hope that the national planning policy framework prospectus, when published, and my response to the three major issues that have been raised in discussing the amendment, will reassure Members. I will continue to reflect on the issues that have been raised, particularly in relation to responses to the prospectus. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Matthew Pennycook
I am extremely disappointed by the Minister’s response. The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale was right to use the phrase “tin-eared”. That is what the Minister’s response was, and I hope he will reconsider.
The amendment and the clause go to the heart of the problem with the Bill. Is it a vehicle to empower communities and their representatives, or to override them when the Government of the day think that is the appropriate thing to do? Where the Government fall on that question is clear from the Minister’s answer. Let me reiterate that the level of scrutiny that we are asking for is not excessive or inappropriate; it is a minimum public consultation requirement in the way that currently applies to local planning policies, and the same level of parliamentary scrutiny as for designated national policy statements.
The Minister’s response was very telling. He said: “Well, the Secretary of State”—the previous Secretary of State now—“has committed to consultation.” That is all well and good, and I hope the prospectus will come in the summer, but it is not about that or about what the previous Secretary of State said; it is about what the Bill says. The Bill says that a Secretary of State needs to consult on an NDMPs if he or she considers it “appropriate”. If a Secretary of State in a future Labour Government brings forward an NDMP, does not consult on it, and uses it to override a local development plan in a constituency of one of the Members now on the Government side of this Committee, those Members would be the first to cry foul the use of such powers. The clause guarantees only that a Secretary of State needs to consult if he considers it appropriate.
On parliamentary scrutiny, the Minister said that NDMPs are different from national policy statements because they have a broader purpose. If they have a broader purpose, surely there is all the more need for basic parliamentary accountability and scrutiny, in the way that currently applies to such statements under the Planning Act 2008.
I am extremely disappointed by the Minister’s response, as he can tell. I hope that he will go back and reconsider this issue and those that we raised in the debate on clause 83, because we will certainly discuss these matters again, if not on Report in this place, then in the other place. I will not press the amendment to a vote, but I urge him to reconsider. 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
Clause 84 provides the statutory basis for national development management policies in England. As they will play an important part in the planning process, the clause puts a necessary safeguard in place: they must be designated by the Secretary of State so that their status is clear, they must relate to the development or use of land and, most importantly, they must be subject to appropriate consultation before they can have effect.
The clause is necessarily broad in scope so that national policies can address the various planning considerations that apply across the country, from basic policies for protecting the green belt to those for avoiding areas of high flood risk. That will free up local plans to focus on matters of local importance.
We intend to consult fully on the scope and content of these policies before they are first introduced to ensure we have heard a wide range of views before deciding what is best set out at a national level, and before deciding what the policies themselves will say. Alongside clauses 83 and 84, they will be instrumental in making it easier to prepare local plans that reflect communities’ priorities for their areas while providing a sound basis to address the general planning considerations that apply across the country. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 84 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 85
Contents of the spatial development strategy
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move amendment 93, in clause 85, page 92, leave out lines 26 and 27.
This amendment would remove an additional legal test within London’s Spatial Development Strategy that could preclude the insertion of policies which contribute to the effective strategic planning of Greater London but would also apply to other urban areas or are not specific to Greater London.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 94, in clause 85, page 92, line 27, at end insert—
“(c) supporting policies within the Spatial Development Strategy that achieve objectives for the benefit of strategic planning of Greater London.”
This amendment would enable the Mayor of London can include policies in a Spatial Development Strategy that contribute to the effective strategic planning of Greater London.
Amendment 95, in clause 85, page 93, line 5, at end insert—
“(2DA) The determination of whether a matter is of strategic importance to more than one London borough for the purposes of subsection (2D) lies solely with the Mayor of London.”
This amendment is intended to remove ambiguity about whose opinion is relevant in relation to whether or not a matter is of strategic importance to more than one London borough.
Amendment 96, in clause 85, page 93, line 9, at end insert—
“(2F) The spatial development strategy must include statements dealing with the general spatial development aspects of—
(a) such of the other strategies prepared and published, or to be prepared and published, under the enactments mentioned in section 41(1) above as involve considerations of spatial development, and
(b) such of the Mayor of London’s other policies or proposals as involve such considerations, whether or not the strategy, policy or proposal relates to the development or use of land.”
This amendment would retain provisions relating to the Mayor of London’s Spatial Development Strategy which relate to the spatial development aspects of the other Mayoral strategies.
Amendment 97, in clause 85, page 93, leave out lines 13 to 19.
This amendment would remove inserted subsection (10), which would place constraints on the Mayor of London’s Spatial Development Strategy relating to national development management policies.
Amendment 91, in schedule 7, page 241, line 16, leave out “with respect to design”.
Amendment 92, in schedule 7, page 241, line 18, after “met” insert
“in support of plan-making or”.
Matthew Pennycook
Clauses 85 and 86 relate to the spatial development strategy in London. I hazard a guess that the subject is not likely to set Government Members’ pulses racing, but it is important none the less, and I feel duty bound to do it justice as the only Member present who represents our glorious capital city.
On the surface, clause 85 appears relatively innocuous. It would seem that it is simply a matter of bringing the London plan in line with other spatial development strategies and providing greater clarity on the matters that can and cannot be covered by a spatial development strategy. However, once one digs into the detail, as I have, it quickly becomes apparent that taken together with two proposed changes set out in schedule 7—proposed new section 15CC, on supplementary plans—it is far more insidious. It amounts, in effect, to the rolling back of London’s strategic planning powers in important ways.
Let me say a little at the outset about why curtailing the strategic planning powers that Greater London enjoys would be harmful. London’s devolved strategic planning powers have been a huge success story over the past two decades under successive mayoral administrations. Since the first draft London plan was published in 2002, successive plans have facilitated a step change in the planning of our country’s only global city. London has been able to lead the way in planning policy approaches in a wide range of areas, whether focused on tackling climate change, addressing biodiversity loss, improving fire safety, addressing poor air quality or increasing the supply of affordable housing and the pace of its delivery.
The results speak for themselves: since the creation of the Greater London Authority, annual net housing supply has doubled and new homes in London lead the country in design, quality and energy efficiency. Indeed, the co-ordinated strategic planning approach that London has adopted has been so successful that the Government are proposing, through this Bill, to allow the new combined county authorities essentially to adopt it.
Despite the tacit recognition of the success of London’s strategic planning powers that the provision of the new power to CCAs implies, clause 85 and parts of schedule 7 explicitly curtail their effective use by putting in place significant additional restrictions on the preparation of future iterations of the London plan. They do so in four ways: first, proposed new subsection (2A)(b) states that policies can be included in a future London plan only if they are designed to achieve objectives that relate to the
“particular characteristics or circumstances of Greater London”.
We believe that is unnecessarily restrictive. There are many objectives that the London plan should appropriately be working toward that are not specific to the characteristics or circumstances of London, whether that is climate change, biodiversity and green infrastructure, supporting town centres and high streets, or parking and suburban housing development.
Matthew Pennycook
I must confess that I am slightly disappointed with that answer. I appreciate that, in reading his remarks, the Minister has addressed each of the amendments in this group, but I do not think he has provided a convincing defence of why the Bill as it stands needs to be that way or of how restricting the Mayor’s powers in the way the Bill intends will not lead to harmful impacts of the kind I set out. I do not intend to press the amendments, but I very much hope that the Minister will continue to engage in dialogue with the Greater London Authority about these specific points. In one way or another, I think we will come back to these issues; if not, I expect that the noble Lords in the other place will do so. 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
The clause introduces schedule 7, which will replace the majority of part 2 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, namely sections 15 to 37. Schedule 7 contains new provisions relating to different elements of the development plan—specifically joint spatial development strategies, local plans, minerals and waste plans, and supplementary plans. The details of those provisions will be debated throughout these sessions.
In summary, the proposed changes will ensure that plans are faster for local authorities to produce, easier for communities to navigate, engage with and understand, and more focused on things that matter locally. The reforms will support local planning authorities to produce local plans and keep them up to date—something that has proven challenging for many under the existing system. Local planning authorities and communities invest considerable time and effort in preparing local plans, but many plans take too long to produce. The average plan takes seven years, and plans are frequently out of date and can be difficult to understand.
Decisions on planning applications are meant to be plan-led, but in practice local plans cannot always be relied on for guiding decisions, especially when they are not up to date or do not set clear standards for development to follow. To make the system more responsive and flexible, local authorities will be given new powers to collaborate voluntarily with each other on joint spatial development strategies. They will also be able to introduce new policy at pace through supplementary plans.
There are two specific elements of the current plan-making system that the Government are not looking to retain. The first is the requirement for local planning authorities to produce a statement of community involvement. Such statements do little to drive meaningful dialogue with communities during plan production. Instead, the Secretary of State will produce guidance setting out much clearer expectations around how local planning authorities should engage people in the planning process.
Secondly, we do not propose to retain the duty to co-operate. The duty has been widely criticised as inflexible and burdensome, causing significant delays to the production of local plans. It will be replaced with a more flexible policy-based approach to addressing strategic issues that cut across authorities. That will be set out in a revised national planning policy framework in due course.
Matthew Pennycook
Just to check that I understood the Minister correctly, is he saying that the new flexible alignment test, which is to follow in the Bill, will come in only at the point that the NPPF is finalised in 2025? Is he saying that that is when we should expect this new test to appear?
Mr Jones
Clearly we will need to ensure that the new test is workable. We will have to consider that very carefully, and we will no doubt consult on it. I will need to come back to the hon. Gentleman about the timeframe in order to provide him with that information. However, given the important changes that this clause enables us to introduce, I commend it to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 87 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 7
Plan making
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move amendment 112, in schedule 7, page 224, line 14, after “authorities” insert “or county councils”.
This amendment and amendment 113 would enable county councils to prepare joint spatial development plans.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 113, in schedule 7, page 224, line 16, after “authority” insert “or county council”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 112.
Amendment 103, in schedule 7, page 224, leave out lines 19 to 22.
This amendment would leave out inserted section 15A(2)(b) and make combined authorities eligible for a joint spatial development strategy.
Amendment 102 in schedule 7, page 233, line 41, at end insert—
“15AJ Duty to co-operate in absence of joint spatial development strategy
(1) This section applies in any area in which a joint spatial development strategy is not operative.
(2) Each person who is—
(a) a local planning authority,
(b) a county council in England that is not a local planning authority, or
(c) a body, or other person, that is prescribed or of a prescribed description, must co-operate with every other person who is within paragraph (a), (b) or (c) or subsection (10) in maximising the effectiveness with which activities within subsection (3) are undertaken.
(3) In particular, the duty imposed on a person by subsection (2) requires the person—
(a) to engage constructively, actively and on an ongoing basis in any process by means of which activities within subsection (4) are undertaken, and
(b) to have regard to activities of a person within subsection (10) so far as they are relevant to activities within subsection (4).
(4) The activities within this subsection are—
(a) the preparation of a joint spatial development strategy,
(b) the preparation of development plan documents,
(c) the preparation of other local development documents,
(d) the preparation of marine plans under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 for the English inshore region, the English offshore region or any part of either of those regions,
(e) activities that can reasonably be considered to prepare the way for activities within any of paragraphs (a) to (d) that are, or could be, contemplated, and
(f) activities that support activities within any of paragraphs (a) to (d), so far as relating to a strategic matter.
(5) For the purposes of subsection (4), each of the following is a ‘strategic matter’—
(a) sustainable development or use of land that has or would have a significant impact on at least two planning areas, including (in particular) sustainable development or use of land for or in connection with infrastructure that is strategic and has or would have a significant impact on at least two planning areas, and
(b) sustainable development or use of land in a two-tier area if the development or use—
(i) is a county matter, or
(ii) has or would have a significant impact on a county matter.
(6) In subsection (5)—
‘county matter’ has the meaning given by paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the principal Act (ignoring sub-paragraph 1(1)(i)),
‘planning area’ means—
(a) the area of—
(i) a district council (including a metropolitan district council),
(ii) a London borough council, or
(iii) a county council in England for an area for which there is no district council,
but only so far as that area is neither in a National Park nor in the Broads,
(b) a National Park,
(c) the Broads,
(d) the English inshore region, or
(e) the English offshore region, and
‘two-tier area’ means an area—
(a) for which there is a county council and a district council, but
(b) which is not in a National Park.
(7) The engagement required of a person by subsection (3)(a) includes, in particular—
(a) considering whether to consult on and prepare, and enter into and publish, agreements on joint approaches to the undertaking of activities within subsection (3), and
(b) if the person is a local planning authority, considering whether to agree under section 28 to prepare joint local development documents.
(8) A person subject to the duty under subsection (2) must have regard to any guidance given by the Secretary of State about how the duty is to be complied with.
(9) A person, or description of persons, may be prescribed for the purposes of subsection (2)(c) only if the person, or persons of that description, exercise functions for the purposes of an enactment.
(10) A person is within this subsection if the person is a body, or other person, that is prescribed or of a prescribed description.
(11) In this section—
‘the English inshore region’ and ‘the English offshore region’ have the same meaning as in the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, and
‘land’ includes the waters within those regions and the bed and subsoil of those waters.”
This amendment would require local authorities and other public bodies to co-operate on local planning measures in the absence of an operative joint spatial development strategy on the lines of section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. This duty would encompass co-operation by all relevant local authorities on preparation for such a strategy.
Matthew Pennycook
Schedule 7 is 40 pages long and it contains a very wide range of provisions on plan making, many of which are complex. The amendments in this group relate to the provisions concerning joint spatial development strategies.
We support the new power in proposed new section 15A that allows two or more local planning authorities to work together to create one of these strategies. If done well, we believe they that will provide a high-level investment framework, more choice of where to direct development, greater opportunity to deliver sustainable growth and a means of translating national policy priorities, from levelling up to net zero, on a place-based basis.
In our view, joint spatial development strategies are likely to provide a much more attractive and deliverable strategic planning model than provided for by existing joint strategic plans, which have proved problematic, given that they are prepared and tested by means of an arrangement essentially designed for detailed local plans. Allowing groups of authorities to come together and collaborate to prepare and test strategic planning policies in relation to matters that cross local boundaries, whether that be infrastructure or affordable housing, by means of a joint spatial development strategy, is clearly a good thing, and it is crucial that more authorities do that.
Mr Jones
Although I understand the reasons for the amendments, our intention is for the reformed planning system to be district-led. As we have discussed previously, we do not want to see planning or any other powers being drawn upwards as a result of our reforms. As such, joint spatial development strategies need to be driven by the authorities closest to their communities.
We agree that county councils should play an important role in the plan-making process. They will have significant influence over the development of a joint spatial development strategy, and we envisage that they will be closely involved with its day-to-day production. To make sure that happens, we are giving them the formal status of statutory consultee so that they can bring their experience and expertise in a range of issues, particularly highways, transport, flood mitigation, education and the rules on waste, to the creation of a joint spatial development strategy. Planning inspectors examining the joint spatial development strategy will want to see evidence of work on those key issues and to make sure that any views expressed by the county council have been properly taken into consideration.
The approach that we are proposing strikes a balance between ensuring that joint spatial development strategies are developed at the right level and ensuring that the views and expertise of county councils are part of the process. Likewise, in areas with an elected Mayor, we believe it is vital that the Mayor is formally involved in the production of a spatial development strategy, in order to provide clear and accountable leadership for it. That is why combined authorities should not be eligible to produce a joint spatial development strategy. In such cases, the Mayor, with the support of all the member authorities, can approach the Government to ask for spatial development strategy powers to be conferred on them as part of their devolution deal.
I hope that was the response that the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich was looking for. His amendments seem to view spatial development strategies as a co-ordinating layer in the planning system. Amendment 102 seeks to resuscitate the duty to co-operate, which is widely agreed—most Conservative Members would agree, at least—to have been an ineffective mechanism, criticised as inflexible, bureaucratic and slow. That is why the Bill abolishes it. We can all agree that it is vital for local planning authorities to work together to make sure that cross-boundary issues are properly addressed. We expect them to plan for, and deliver, the housing and infrastructure our communities need. The planning system provides a number of mechanisms to assist them in doing so to which we are adding.
We intend to replace the duty with more flexible policy within the revised national planning policy framework, upon which we will consult. This will enable local planning authorities to address any issues of alignment during the preparation of a plan. At present, if an authority fails the duty its local plan must be withdrawn. The Bill also introduces a new requirement to assist with plan making, which we will consider more fully in due course. That will ensure the involvement of those who are vital to production of plans, including the delivery and planning of infrastructure. As such, joint spatial development strategies should not be seen as a co-ordinating function, replacing the duty to co-operate. I hope that the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich will agree to not to press the amendments to a vote.
Matthew Pennycook
I am grateful to the Minister for that response. On the issue of mayoral combined authorities and combined authorities, I cannot say that I am entirely convinced. However, I note the detailed response he gave me to the amendment, and I will give it further consideration. On the issue of county councils, the Minister says that they will be closely involved. I remain concerned that not giving them equality of status will be harmful. I am aware that the Department is concerned that if we do not get county councils to bring resources to the table for the new joint spatial development strategies, it may have effects that the Government do not want.
On the issue of the duty to co-operate and the voluntary nature of those new powers, I remain concerned about what happens and how that impacts on the Government’s wider policy objectives in areas where authorities do not make use of the power when we have removed the only statutory arrangement to enable them to co-operate. I urge the Minister to go away and give that some thought. If the Minister is not comfortable reintroducing the duty for those who have not taken up those powers, will he at least think again about whether the incentive structure might be tweaked to ensure that the majority of areas make use of the powers? I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Gareth Johnson.)
Matthew Pennycook
Main Page: Matthew Pennycook (Labour - Greenwich and Woolwich)Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Fifteenth sitting)
Matthew Pennycook ExcerptsThursday 14th July 2022
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 14 July 2022 - (14 Jul 2022)
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move amendment 121, in schedule 7, page 227, line 15, at end insert—
“(e) other community organisations representing members of that community”
This amendment would extend the group of determining bodies to include community groups.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Murray. Given that planning has to be about our local communities, I find it astounding how little agency communities, community groups and residents have in the process. As we heard this morning, it seems that their voices will be diminished by the Bill, rather than expanded. Therefore, I believe that my amendment would help give communities some agency within the planning process.
The Opposition really value civil society, and we value individual residents and their different views. We value businesses and our community groups, and I believe that their knowledge and passion for the local area is irreplaceable. They know the challenges, the investment that is needed, and the people. They should be the drivers of development, and they should be seen as central participants in any planning process or development. The amendment is designed to ensure that copies of reports are received by local communities, whose voices seem diminished in the Bill, because Labour wants to amplify the voices of the people most affected by planning.
In my constituency, there are just too many groups to mention. However, if we are looking at the planning process for transport, I think about the York Bus Forum, Walk York and the York Cycle Campaign, which provide the best analysis of the current and future transport needs of our city. York Civic Trust has just undertaken a piece of deliberative democracy to establish a future transport strategy, and it would want to receive a report in order to reflect on the findings and to ensure that it can fully participate in the planning process.
In York, we have a city full of historians and archaeologists who understand the value of place making; we have a university full of housing specialists; and we have York Central Co-Owned, or YoCo, which has been engaging residents in dialogue on future developments. York Disability Rights Forum can highlight issues of access. Our local enterprise partnership, universities and colleges, and business partners are working on York’s future economy. They, too, would want to be engaged in the planning process, yet community groups seem so absent and do not even receive reports of strategies in order to be able to take planning forward and to be part of the consultation on the future of what they spend 24 hours a day working for.
We have resident groups that are actively looking at planning. We all have such groups in our constituencies, and I am sure that all hon. Members will recognise their strength. We are proud of them because of their dedication and attention to detail, and the inclusion of the community is urgently needed in the planning and consultation process. My amendment would build on that expectation and stop communities being locked out of planning, because our planning system is all the poorer without them. I will shortly go on to explain why their prominence must change but, for now, I believe that the first step is to involve communities in consultations by sending over copies of strategies, which is something that the Minister should not block.
If we have such expertise in our communities, let us bring it into the heart of the planning process so that we get the very best housing, economic space and environment, and so that the people who know their area best—the local residents and other stakeholders—have greater agency in planning processes. I have tabled a number of amendments to stimulate the Government into working through how residents can have a greater say over the future of their communities.
York Central is a classic example. Right from the start of the process, the community have been told that they will have a voice in the project at the next stage. As we go through each stage and are told that their time will come, my conclusion is that they may get to choose the colour of the spring bulbs, but nothing significant. At every step of the process there is no opportunity for real community engagement. The promised voice never comes. Residents have organised into community groups with the hope that their collective voice will be heard, yet it is not.
Whether for York Central or the York local plan, the very people who should have the greatest voice have the least. In both scenarios, political expediency of the ruling council parties has placed political self-interest over the interests of the city. In York Central, the partners’ agenda is to secure the opening of the National Railway Museum by 2025—we all understand the importance of that. Network Rail getting a capital receipt has further blocked and locked out local people’s voices. The contempt is staggering.
The Minister would weep at the conduct of his own party, not to mention the Lib Dems and Greens, in the political process of planning in York. I will talk more about the solution in my next set of amendments. I urge Government to think more about the brilliance that will come from more community inclusion in the consultation processes, engaging our community groups by ensuring that they are included in the information and are sent a copy of the strategy. Surely that is the first stage.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for York Central on this sensible amendment, which I am very supportive of. It simply specifies, as she so clearly articulated, that local community groups be included in the list of bodies that are sent a copy of any joint spatial development strategy adopted.
The Government have extolled the virtues of this legislation in part on the basis that it will demonstrably improve local engagement in the planning process. It surely follows that Ministers would welcome the engagement of community organisations when it comes to the new strategies that schedule 7 provides for. Given that all the amendment does is to ensure that a copy of any such strategy created and adopted is sent to the representative community organisations, I cannot for the life of me think of a convincing reason why the Government would not accept it.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your guidance, Mrs Murray. I am also keen to support the sentiment behind the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for York Central. Confidence in the planning process is at an all-time low. In any of the constituencies of right hon. and hon. Members, confidence in communities in the planning process will not be great. In mine, land is of such enormous value around national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty.
To have an amendment to the Bill that allows us to formalise a greater level of consultation and involvement of local communities seems very wise. If we can get the consent of local communities and have communities shape how they are developed in the years to come, the chance of people having confidence in the decision-making process and local democracy of the planning process is that much higher.
I am very lucky to have a constituency where every square inch is parished—there is not a single part of my community without a parish council. We have a default consultee on behalf of the community in every single town, village and valley in Westmorland and Lonsdale, and throughout much of the rest of Cumbria as well. There are community groups that ought to be formally involved in that process, so that the right decisions are made. People feel so frustrated.
In our community, we are the opposite: we want houses to be built. We see the decimation of our local communities—I can talk elsewhere about the evaporation of the housing market to second home owners and holiday lets. We desperately need homes that are affordable and available for local people. We do not get people saying, “Not in my backyard”; they are saying, “In my backyard now.” But we want houses that are useful to us: affordable, social rented and guaranteed for a local working population and those who are retired.
People are frustrated by a lack of adequate provision when it comes to drainage, flood prevention, sewerage, school places—all those sorts of things. If the community were properly involved, it would give its consent and approval to schemes that would otherwise get opposition.
We also see an imbalance in the process—the developer can appeal and the community cannot—which adds to the general sense that planning is a process by which things happen to communities, not by which communities decide what happens to them. The sentiments behind this amendment are good, and I really hope the Government will take it into account.
Rachael Maskell
I appreciate the debate that we have had on amendment 121. The parish system is incredibly good at engaging people because it is so local. The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale highlighted its establishment in the rural environment, but it is less prevalent in more urban environments, so we need to look at how to encourage the growth of parish councils across the country. They can be of real value and can get people to engage in their communities. Indeed, they are a first step for many in politics, as they are a less political environment in which to make decisions about their local community. There is some real strength in that. We will talk about neighbourhood plans, and it is important that we look at their inclusion as we work through the Bill.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich for his comments about the importance of putting people at the heart of planning; they often seem very much at the periphery. I looked very carefully at the Bill before drafting the amendment, and there is a bit of a vacuum in it, so it could be strengthened. Later this afternoon I will talk a little more about the importance of agency and voice, because they are absent.
I hear what the Minister says about the other organisations that are included, and his comments are helpful. If community groups feel excluded from the process, the Minister’s words highlighted that the clauses do not exclude them. Therefore, if they are unable to get hold of a copy of a report, I am sure those words will be very valuable in raising a challenge in the planning system to ensure that people get access to data. I am happy to withdraw the amendment, but I will be returning to the scene very shortly. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move amendment 88, in schedule 7, page 228, leave out line 5.
This amendment, along with Amendment 89, would explicitly ensure that people would have a right to be heard at an examination in public in relation to the Joint Spatial Development Plan part of the development plan.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 89, in schedule 7, page 228, line 9, at end insert—
“(8) Any person who makes representations in relation to the strategy must (if that person so requests) be invited to appear before and be heard by the examiner.”
See explanatory statement for Amendment 88.
Amendment 90, in schedule 7, page 246, line 29, leave out lines 29 and 30.
This amendment would prevent the general rule for hearings for supplementary plans taking the form of written representations and would instead enable the examiner to determine the form of the examination.
Matthew Pennycook
As I mentioned this morning, this is an incredibly technical schedule. It covers measures as diverse as powers to intervene in local plan making, a duty to prepare local design codes, neighbourhood priority statements and many other things. The three amendments relate to the important issue of public participation in the two new constituent parts of local development plans that the schedule introduces—namely, joint spatial development strategies, which we have already discussed; and supplementary plans.
It depends whether a local planning authority is in Greater London or subject to other devolutions deals, but in the main it is local and neighbourhood plans that presently constitute the development plan for most parts of England. Clause 82(3) expands the list of what can be included in a development plan to include spatial development strategies and supplementary plans, both of which will have the same legal status as a development plan in decision making, ironically taking us back to a situation where development plans are comprised of a suite of documents, not unlike what was introduced in the 2004 reforms and scrapped in 2011 on the basis that it was all too complicated.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, which is a useful illustration of what local people and local community groups can add to the plan-making process.
Our specific concern is that the denial of the right to be heard on the two new documents means that, in important ways, the process of formulating a local plan could be constrained. Let me illustrate what I mean. It should be remembered that these documents are designed to resolve issues such as the local planning authorities’ approach to the green belt or strategic infrastructure. Once set, local plans will need to be in conformity with these strategies, but it will be impossible to make use of the right to be heard vis-à-vis a local plan on important issues affecting a community, because it will be in effect impossible to challenge a decision that has already been resolved by means of a spatial development strategy, in relation to which no right to be heard will exist.
The Minister will no doubt be briefed to say that rights to be heard do not apply to other strategic plans, such as the London plan or the now abolished regional plans. That is true, but the justification for the abolition of regional plans was that they were not accountable or trusted by communities. If the aim is to increase participation, why not grant these important safeguards?
On Second Reading, both the previous Secretary of State and the previous Minister championed this legislation in part because they argued that it would tangibly improve local engagement. Why, then, are the Government content to consciously and deliberately shut down the opportunity for such engagement when it comes to new joint spatial development strategies and supplementary plans?
Amendments 88 to 90 would resolve this glaring contradiction in the legislation. Taken together, amendments 88 and 89 would enshrine in the Bill the right to be heard at an examination in public in relation to a joint spatial development strategy, while amendment 90
“would prevent the general rule for hearings for supplementary plans taking the form of written representations and would instead enable the examiner to determine the form of the examination”
as they saw fit. We believe that these amount to simple but appropriate changes to schedule 7 that would restore the right to be heard and thus enable communities to engage fully at every stage of the development plan formulation process. If the Government are genuinely open to further honing and refining the Bill before it is given Royal Assent, as previous Ministers always maintained, they should accept these amendments, and I hope to hear that this Minister is content to do so.
Tim Farron
It is worth observing that a previous Government ripped up completely the spatial development strategy process, largely because of the sense that the populations of this country felt that it was utterly disconnected from the plans, desires and priorities of their communities.
If we are to go down this route and not enable a formalised process by which communities can have their voices heard when it comes to spatial development plans, we are just setting ourselves up for the same mistake that the previous Government made. If we want people to feel confident in these plans and believe that they are in their interests and right for the future of their communities, children and grandchildren, we need to give them the chance to have their voices heard and to have their say. The amendments seem entirely sensible to me.
Mr Jones
As we discussed in relation to digital reforms of the planning system, we absolutely share the objective of improving community engagement in all parts of the planning system. It is, however, appropriate to allow different procedures for that engagement, based on the role of the plan or strategy in question.
The current procedure for the examination of spatial development strategies is now well established. It is true that, unlike for local plans, there is no formal right to appear in person. However, we are confident that the current arrangements are fair, proportionate and effective. Experience shows that planning inspectors go to great lengths to ensure that a broad range of relevant interests and views are heard at examinations for spatial development strategies. The Committee may like to know that the most recent spatial development strategy examination, for the London plan in 2019, took place over 12 weeks and the list of participants ran to 27 pages.
The fundamental difference between spatial development strategies and local plans is that they do not designate or allocate specific land for development; that remains the role of the local plan. It should also be remembered that written and oral evidence carry equal weight at examination, and there is no limit on the submission of written evidence.
That brings me to amendment 90. We intend supplementary plans to replace supplementary planning documents, and, once they have successfully passed through consultation and independent examination, to be afforded the same weight as a local plan and other parts of the development plan. We are committed to a fair examination process, which is why we have based it on the arrangements for neighbourhood development plans.
The Bill sets out that, as a general rule, the independent examination of a supplementary plan is to take the form of written representations. That is expected to be more appropriate to their role in setting more specific policies for smaller areas than the local plan. The examiner must, however, hold a hearing if they think that is necessary by virtue of the issues raised or to ensure fairness. We expect there to be a need for guidance to support the independent examination of supplementary plans in general. We have been clear that we will work closely with the sector to refine our implementation plans, and we will be keen to hear views on whether further clarification on the matter of public hearings is necessary.
We have also committed to producing new guidance on community engagement in planning, which will describe the different ways in which communities can get involved and will highlight best practice. The guidance will cover supplementary plans. Given that the processes for both joint spatial development strategies and supplementary plans build on proven existing processes that have been designed to reflect their intended role, I hope the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich will feel able to withdraw the amendments.
Matthew Pennycook
As the Minister would expect, I am disappointed by his response. He said that improving community engagement was an objective of the Bill. I do not see how he can reconcile that with the decision to deny the right to be heard when it comes to the two new documents, which have the same legal status as a development plan in decision making, and, as I have argued, will constrain the local plan in many cases because they will effectively filter what local residents can have a say on in that local plan by already setting out the parameters in, for example, a joint spatial development strategy.
I am not minded to push these amendments to a vote at the moment, but we will come back to the issue. I just say to the Minister that anyone watching our proceedings who is interested in planning from a local perspective will see a pattern here of the Government constraining the ability of residents and community groups to engage, and—this is the most damaging aspect—further undermining trust and confidence in a system where trust and confidence are already at rock bottom. I urge him to reconsider over the summer. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Rachael Maskell
I beg to move amendment 122, in schedule 7, page 234, line 27, at end insert—
“(j) the timescale for the deliberative democracy process as set out in section [Deliberative democracy: local planning].”
This amendment along with Amendments 124 and 125 and NC42 will introduce a deliberative democracy process to the local plan timetable.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank my hon. Friend for tabling this group of amendments, which raise an incredibly important issue that the Bill is silent on.
Debates about whether and how to formalise arrangements for deliberative democracy within the planning system have occupied those engaged in planning policy and practice for some time. I do not intend to try to do justice to those debates or to set out the case for considering amending the Bill to introduce a deliberative democracy process within the local plan timetable—my hon. Friend has admirably made the case for the benefits that deliberative democracy can bring.
All I will say is that we support this group of amendments because we think it is right that we look to do more to encourage public participation in the planning process beyond the existing right to be heard that applies to the examination of a local development plan, if not to the new spatial development strategies and supplementary plans that this schedule gives effect to.
Tim Farron
The hon. Member for York Central will forgive me if I do not get into the internal politics of York city, but all the same I think her proposals have real merit.
It seems that the housing market—in York, in the lakes and dales, elsewhere in Cumbria and in other parts of the country as well—has got into such a ludicrous situation that our planning law is just not able to keep up with it or to provide local communities with any kind of protection or agency when it comes to challenging that spiralling, out-of-control housing market.
Fairness in the planning system is essential. It is utterly frustrating—in fact, it is absolutely heartbreaking, as the hon. Member said—when communities see the desperate need for affordable homes for families who either are local or who will become local and for those working in social care, hospitality and tourism, schools and every other part of our economy, but the planning system permits us to build for demand and not for need. Communities must have that power and that agency.
Structured fairness in the planning system is essential, but it will require resourcing because the better planning decisions are those made with the community fully involved and with the planners getting out of their offices and meeting developers and communities semi-formally on site long before a proposal has been put in, so that we end up with a proposal that is, effectively, agreed on almost in advance.
When communities feel they are having things done to them, and when whole neighbourhoods are evicted and expelled through section 21 evictions, which the Government are yet to do anything about, those communities are bound to be desperate to have control and agency, to make sure that we make the best use of the resources and powers we have. What a slap in the face it would be for communities if we went down the deliberative route and then found at the end that communities do not have any power to enforce 100% affordability on any development or the permanent occupancy of houses that are developed.
We need to give communities that proper engagement and involvement, and we need there need to be enough planners, with enough resources, so that they can get out of the office and help to communicate with the community and indeed with developers in a consensual and pragmatic way. However, if we do not have the powers and the control at local planning level, we will find people who have been consulted but who still feel completely and utterly powerless.
Rachael Maskell
We are not here to talk about politics—well, maybe we are. Before the last election it was a Conservative-led administration with the Lib Dems’ support. The Minister is right that the Lib Dems and the Greens are in charge of the administration. Labour has not had control for a significant time, although there are elections next year, so we will see.
The key point is that when there is poor planning, as there is for the site I am thinking of, and we are in a deadlock situation that will be ruinous for the future of the community, we need a resolution and tools that can be deployed to find a solution. As I have described, the site is not providing the housing that our city needs. It will block off the economic opportunity for something that is so valuable for the levelling-up agenda not just for York and North Yorkshire but for the north. We need to find some solutions and stop the exploitation of land on that site.
I thank the Minister for his comments. I will not press this amendment to a vote, but I will consider how we will come back to the issue because it is important that we get it right. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move amendment 99, in schedule 7, page 238, leave out lines 16 and 17.
This amendment removes the requirement in inserted section 15C(7)(b) that a local development plan must be consistent with national policies at the development plan formulation stage.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 100, in schedule 7, page 239, line 19, at end insert—
“(but may not require a local plan to be consistent with any national demand management policy)”
This amendment would provide that regulations made under inserted section 15C could not require local plans to conform with national policies.
Matthew Pennycook
The amendments relate to a matter that we have already considered at length. As such, I do not intend to detain the Committee for long in speaking to them. Their purpose is simply to draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that there are two aspects of the issues that we debated in relation to clause 83, which concerned the Government’s intention to accord primacy to national planning policy in the form of NDMPs and, as a result, to provide for a large measure of central control over local development plans.
In stating that any conflict between local development plans and national development management policies should be resolved in favour of the latter, clause 83 relates specifically to the point in time at which any planning application is determined. Proposed new subsection (5A) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 makes it clear that proposed new subsections (5B) and (5C) are
“for the purposes of any determination to be made under the planning Acts”.
They therefore do not relate to the point at which the local development plan is put together.
In schedule 7, proposed new sections 15C and 15CA of the PCPA 2004 specify that local plans must be formulated in accordance with national development management policies. That matters, because even if we had been successful in convincing the Minister to leave out proposed new subsection (5C) in section 38 of the PCPA, proposed new sections 15C and 15CA would constrain the resulting local flexibility that we would have secured at the point that a planning application is determined, because they provide for a large measure of central control over what can be in a local or neighbourhood plan in the first place.
Amendments 99 and 100 seek to address the issue by removing the provisions in proposed new sections 15C and 15CA of the PCPA that local plans should be consistent with NDMPs. In the same way that amendment 86 to clause 83 sought to give precedence to local plans when a planning application is determined, the amendments seek to ensure that local and neighbourhood plans can have a degree of flexibility within a nationally set planning policy framework at the point that they are developed, rather than the content of local and neighbourhood plans being dictated in large part by central Government.
I know the response that the Minister will give me but I again urge him to reconsider according national planning policy in the form of NDMPs precedence over local development plans—in this instance, in relation to the point in time at which local plans are developed, rather than when planning applications are determined.
Mr Jones
I thank the hon. Member for his amendment to the plan preparation provisions in schedule 7 that prevent inconsistency with national development management policies. I feel this is almost like groundhog day on this particular point.
National development management policies would sit alongside those in local plans when certain planning decisions are made, and have clear statutory weight. National development management policies will primarily be nationally important policies used for making decisions, such as green belt protection. At present, local plans take too much time to produce and are too long, and they are often hard to digest. Notably, there can be a lot of overlap with policies in the national planning policy framework of common importance, such as flood protection and the green belt, where the protections are rightly uniform throughout the country.
A critical objective of our proposed changes to the planning system is to reduce the time it takes for local plans to be produced. Reducing the need to repeat common policies on nationally important matters in local plans removes an unnecessary burden on local authorities while underpinning key national policy protections with statutory weight such as policies for controlling development in the green belt, which I have mentioned several times.
Preventing plans from being inconsistent with national development management policies will also allow local plans to focus on the issues that matter to local communities, which will be enabled to focus on crafting local policies that are tailored to local circumstances. We have heard about one set of local circumstances at some length; clearly we want to make sure that local people and their representatives can craft local polices that are tailored to local circumstances.
Matthew Pennycook
As I said, I expected that answer. The Minister said our exchanges feel somewhat like groundhog day; it will start to feel like that, because we will return to this issue. We all know how the film “Groundhog Day” ends: when the main character, Phil Connors, reforms his ways. I hope the Minister can find it in his heart to change and to shift on this issue. I will not press the amendment to a vote but we will return to this issue, at the root of which is the status and scope of local plans, on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Rachael Maskell
I beg to move amendment 126, in schedule 7, page 239, line 14, at end insert—
“(ha) Environmental Outcomes Reports,”.
This amendment would require local planning authority to have regard to Environmental Outcomes Reports in preparing a local plan.
I will be brief because we are going to say more about this issue when we deal with the environmental outcomes reports later in the Bill. If the amendment is not made, too little consideration will be given to the assessment of environmental impact. Nothing can be more important than to look at what is happening with the climate challenge. On Monday, many of us had the privilege to listen to top scientists talk about the climate risk and sketch out the profoundly troubling outcomes. We have struggled to get through this week because of the heat and people we know in our neighbourhoods are dying because of it.
We have to ensure that all outcomes seriously consider how we mitigate the climate catastrophe that we are living through. The planning process has a central role to play in that, whether in respect of transport, home heating, housing design or the industrial impacts that are having a great effect. As we all know, the current situation is not sustainable, and the Government have to focus on that at every turn. We have flooding and droughts side by side. I have tabled amendments for further discussion later in the Bill. Clause 116(2) sets out why this amendment is so important and why we must protect and restore our natural environment.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank my hon. Friend for tabling the amendment which, as she has set out, seeks to ensure that the Bill makes it clear that local planning authorities should have regard to environmental outcomes reports in preparing their local plans. We support any practical revisions to the Bill that are aimed at strengthening and enhancing the delivery of environmental outcomes. If the Government will not accept my hon. Friend’s amendment, I hope to hear from the Minister not only a convincing argument as to why but an explanation of how the Government believe the new EOR regime that is set out part 5 will interact with the preparation of local plans.
Mr Jones
The Government are clear that environmental outcomes reports will form part of the consideration of whether a local plan is adopted. The Bill already includes provisions in clauses 118 and 117 to define which plans will require assessment and how such plans should be taken into account. Although the list of plans that require assessment will be set out in secondary legislation, our commitment to the non-regression of environmental protection makes it clear that the relevant local planning authorities will need to produce an environmental outcomes report as part of their local plan adoption process. The reports will ensure that environmental outcomes are taken into account during the preparation and adoption of local plans.
The regulations will set out which projects and plans will require the preparation of an environmental outcomes report. The exact list of projects and plans that will require assessment will be worked out through consultation with the sector and relevant stakeholders. That will ensure that we can capture and use expert feedback in the design of the system.
In writing the regulations, we will be constrained by our commitment to non-regression on environmental protections. In line with that commitment, local plans will require environmental assessment, as they do in the existing system. Setting out the exact list in regulations, rather than in primary legislation, will allow flexibility, which is key, given the type of changes we see. Flexibility will mean that we can take into account new situations and the emergence of new technologies or development types. With that explanation, I hope that the hon. Member will withdraw her amendment.
Matthew Pennycook
I welcome the amendment, because it probes the Government on an intriguing, if not uncontroversial, issue of whether a formal mechanism should be put in place to ensure that local plans can be revised in line with the local electoral cycle. She made the case that that would give us the flexibility to adjust to new political priorities. Also, one of the potential benefits of allowing for a six-month review period following a local election would be that political parties in a given local authority area would at least have an incentive to raise the issue of the local development plan as part of the democratic process, thereby raising public awareness of and engagement with it.
Given the steps being taken to ensure that every local plan is reviewed at least once every five years—the Minister spoke to that—the electoral cycle as a period of time is not too out of alignment with the time period we are talking about for the review. On that basis, I welcome the amendment as a way of probing the Government on the issue, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to the case that my hon. Friend made.
Mr Jones
I welcome the opportunity to discuss the Government’s proposals to get more up-to-date local plans in place. Paragraph 15GA in schedule 7 already enables a local planning authority to revise its plan at any time once it has come into force, irrespective of whether the authority has recently changed political control. My concern, however, is that by explicitly making a link between local elections and planning, the amendment risks turning a local plan into a political football. The hon. Member for York Central has told us all about what she thinks was a political football situation in her area.
For authorities that have elections in thirds, rewriting plans on the basis of election results could lead to updates three times every four years. That could lead to a constant change of direction. It would leave communities and other interested parties in a permanent state of uncertainty about what development should take place and where. Our reforms will provide welcome predictability in the local plan-making process; there will be a requirement for plans to be prepared within 30 months, and updated every five years. We think that is the right balance. I hope I have provided sufficient reassurances for the hon. Member for York Central, and that she will withdraw her amendment.
Rachael Maskell
I have gone into detail on why the Government should consider deliberative democracy. I will not repeat myself, but there is a real opportunity to enable deadlocks to be broken and to move forward with a process of engagement, so that we have a strong voice in setting neighbourhood priorities and can strengthen community voices in the planning process. I will say no more on that now, but I will return to the subject on Report. I welcome the opportunity to raise the issue again.
Matthew Pennycook
Briefly, I have made it clear on previous occasions that we support any measures in the Bill that increase local democratic control over engagement with the planning process, principally as a means of restoring trust and confidence in the planning system. Although the Bill requires a body preparing a neighbourhood priority statement to publish the proposal in draft so that people who live, work or carry on business in the neighbourhood to which it relates can comment on it, I appreciate that the thrust of the amendments is to ensure that a degree of proactive consultation takes place at the point when the proposal is being put together, rather than providing the opportunity to comment on it once it is finalised. On that basis, we are happy to support the amendments, which would ensure that local stakeholders and community groups were treated as statutory consultees in the preparation of those statements.
Mr Jones
It is of course vital that communities are given every opportunity to have their say on draft local plans and supplementary plans. The English planning system already gives communities a key role, so that they can play an active part in shaping their areas and, in doing so, build local pride and belonging. In the Bill, we are not changing that; in fact, we are strengthening it. I have set out elsewhere how that will be achieved.
The powers we are discussing have been used only sparingly in the past. That is expected to remain the case under the reformed plan-making system. However, they act as an important safety net to ensure that all areas can benefit from having up-to-date plans in place. I provide reassurance that were the Secretary of State or a local plan commissioner ever to take over plan preparation using the powers in the Bill, the plan would need to undergo public consultation, like any other plan. Like other procedural requirements, that will continue to be set out in secondary legislation, akin to the existing Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012, using powers set out elsewhere in the Bill. Incorporating the amendment into proposed new section 15HA is therefore unnecessary.
The hon. Member for York Central raises the important issue of engagement with the community on the preparation of neighbourhood priority statements. I hope that I can reassure her that the amendment is not necessary. The purpose of neighbourhood priority statements is to provide communities with a simpler and more accessible way to set out their priorities and preferences for the local area, including in relation to the use and development of land, housing, the economy, the environment, public spaces and local facilities.
Proposed new section 15K(6) under the schedule gives the Secretary of State powers to set out in regulations the procedures that neighbourhood planning groups must follow when preparing their neighbourhood priority statements. The Government’s intention is to use the power to set out the requirements that neighbourhood planning groups must meet in order to ensure that they engage widely. We are testing different approaches to community engagement through our simpler approach to neighbourhood planning pilot, which got under way earlier in the year.
I hope that I have provided sufficient reassurances for the hon. Member to withdraw the amendment.
Rachael Maskell
I think that we have to part ways on the issue of the planning process. I am not satisfied that it gives residents their rightful voice. I will not press the Committee to a Division, but giving our communities the opportunity to have a real say will be a major theme on Report. The Government are taking away their voices, but we want to empower them. After all, when people said, “Give us back control”, it was these very issues—their lives, communities and neighbourhoods—that people wanted control over. The Government have not heard that message, whereas we clearly want to respond. Even though my amendment would have enabled us to address why plans run into difficulty and fail to progress, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move amendment 109, in schedule 7, page 262, line 7, at end insert—
“(1A) A local planning authority must have regard to the content of any relevant neighbourhood priorities statement in the exercise of its planning functions.”
As we have just discussed, proposed new section 15K introduces a new neighbourhood planning tool, the neighbourhood priorities statement. According to the Bill’s explanatory notes, these statements will allow communities to identify key priorities for their local area, including their preferences in relation to development, with the intention of providing a simpler and more accessible way for communities to participate in neighbourhood planning.
The provision is clearly a response to the fact that the vast majority of the 1,061 neighbourhood plans made to date have emanated from more affluent parts of the country, where people have the time and the resources to prepare and implement them, rather than from less affluent areas and more complex urban environments. We very much welcome the fact that the Government are engaging with this real problem.
Mr Jones
I welcome the Opposition’s support for neighbourhood planning. However, I do not agree that the amendment is necessary to ensure that neighbourhood priorities statements are properly considered in the planning process. The amendments made by schedule 7 set out that local planning authorities must have regard to any neighbourhood priorities statements in their areas when preparing their local plans. That will be tested independently at examination, which I think is an important point. The new local plan will be informed by any neighbourhood priorities statements and, alongside any neighbourhood plans in force, will form the basis for decisions on individual planning applications and enforcement decisions.
To respond to the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, the intent is not for neighbourhood priority statements to replace a community’s ability to engage and form a neighbourhood plan. However, we do not want to create another layer to the formal development plan by turning priorities statements into a form of plan. That would make the planning system more complex and go against what we are trying to achieve with our reforms.
We are clear that the planning process must be more democratic, which is why we are making it easier and simpler for communities to engage. In addition to neighbourhood priorities statements, communities will be also be able to engage through new measures, including mandatory design codes, allowing communities to be directly involved in making rules on how they want developments to look and feel, with a much greater emphasis on environmental sustainability; street votes, allowing residents to propose developments on their street and for a vote to be held on whether planning permission should be given; and measures on street names, removing a local authority’s ability to impose street name changes on a community and instead requiring it to first obtain support from a majority of the local electorate on the street.
We are clear that communities should be at the heart of the local plan-making process, which is why we intend to include a requirement for two rounds of community engagement, for a minimum of eight and six weeks respectively. That is longer than the current statutory minimum.
We will create new guidance on best practice in community engagement, including digital approaches to engagement with sector experts, to provide local authorities and developers with a toolkit to improve local engagement. We will ensure that all members of the community have the opportunity to engage if they wish, supported by digital tools to make engagement easier and more accessible, bringing the current system into the 21st century. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich will withdraw his amendment.
Matthew Pennycook
I welcome the Minister’s response and the clarification he provided. I am largely reassured, although I am still not entirely clear on the weight that those statements will have in development management decisions on individual applications. I will, however, review what he said, so on that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move amendment 101, in schedule 7, page 270, line 31, at end insert—
“(4) In this part—
‘mitigation of climate change’ means compliance with the objectives and relevant budgetary provisions of the Climate Change Act 2008;
‘adaptation to climate change’ means the achievement of long-term resilience to climate-related risks, including the mitigation of the risks identified in relation to section 56 of the Climate Change Act 2008, and the achievement of the objectives of the relevant flood and coastal erosion risk management strategy made pursuant to section 7 of the Flood and Coastal Water Management Act 2010.”
This amendment requires references to climate change mitigation and adaptation in the inserted sections on plan making to be interpreted in line with the Climate Change Act 2008.
The debates we have had so far in relation to planning have focused heavily on the detailed procedures for how plans are made. We have spent far less time considering the practical outcomes that we want the planning system to help achieve and its role in enabling us to meet a number of significant challenges that we face as a country. I recognise that we will have time to do so after the summer recess, when we consider any proposed new clauses on the purpose of planning. However, we feel it is important that we also seek to amend those parts of the Bill that touch on some of those challenges but that do not necessarily ensure that we are doing what is necessary to meet them.
Of all the challenges we face, the most pressing is that of runaway global heating. Despite the desire of several Conservative party leadership candidates to abandon it, there is broad public support for bold climate action, and a strong cross-party consensus about the importance of the UK’s net zero target. Yet, in its latest annual progress report, the Committee on Climate Change found that the current Government’s policies
“will not deliver Net Zero”,
that the country is on track for only eight of 50 key indicators of progress, with 11 significantly off track, and that no credible plans exist for 61% of required emissions cuts.
When it comes to planning, one can point to a few exemplar development schemes across England, but, in general terms, we have failed to ensure that the planning system is playing its full part in tackling the climate emergency. Indeed, one might go so far as to argue that it is actively hindering our ability to mitigate and adapt to climate change in myriad different ways, whether that be planning decisions enabling the building of new homes in places prone to flooding or unplanned development resulting in new communities that are entirely dependent on cars. More must therefore be done to ensure that the planning system effectively contributes to the delivery of our emission reduction targets and that new development produces resilient and climate-proofed places.
The amendment seeks to achieve that aim by ensuring that the process of plan making is fully aligned with the commitments set out in the Climate Change Act 2008 and the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. It would do so by clarifying the meaning of climate change mitigation and adaptation in the Bill in such a way as to tie them directly to those Acts, thereby strengthening the duty placed on plan making via a 2008 amendment to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 that ensured that all plans contribute to the mitigation and adaptation of climate change.
By ensuring that there is genuine coherence between the country’s planning system and its climate commitments, the amendment would also provide the foundation for more detailed national policy on how planning will contribute to achieving net zero emissions by 2050 and mitigating climate change as fully as possible in the forthcoming NPPF review. I hope that, in his response, the Minister will be able to pick that up and provide us with an update on when we might see that issue addressed in that NPPF review.
To conclude, we all know that the planning system must be aligned with net zero if we are to achieve our legally binding interim targets. I can think of no reason whatsoever that proposed new section 15LH, set out in schedule 7, should not be amended to give effect to that objective in relation to changes made to plan making in the Bill. On that basis, I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment.
Tim Farron
I, too, am deeply concerned by the noises from some of those seeking to become leader of the Conservative party, and therefore Prime Minister, on issues to do with climate change and net zero. I think that they are unwise, politically. When all is said and done, the public are convinced of the need to take serious and radical action. They recognise it as the biggest earthly threat that we face. We must face it together, or we will indeed fall together.
This is where local authorities have the opportunity to make a huge difference in the planning process. I am going to pull out two examples to illustrate why it is so important for the planning system to be tied very closely to the need to comply with the terms of the Climate Change Act 2008. The first is, of course, zero-carbon homes. When we are building new buildings, whether they be homes for us to live in or business properties, we should ensure that they are all compliant. We know that planning committees currently want to make new developments zero carbon, to ensure that they are contributing to renewable energy and minimising any wastage of energy whatsoever, and yet in the final analysis they cannot do so, because it is not enforceable. This Committee has the ability to make the law so that they could do that. Why would we not do that? Why would we not give communities the power and agency to actually enforce zero-carbon homes and buildings in our communities?
As I said earlier, at some point in August—after an eight-month delay—we expect the inspector to announce whether the UK will open its first coalmine for 30 years, in west Cumbria. We obviously should not do that. We will wait and see what the inspector says, and then we will wait and see what the Secretary of State says in response. It should be a no-brainer. If we are acting in line with the terms of the Climate Change Act, we are not going to be sanctioning the digging up of more fossil fuels for any purpose at all.
Those powers should be held by local authorities so that planning authorities can put in practice what we as a national community and family have agreed are our priorities. That power is not present. This amendment, I hope, provides the possibility that it could be.
Mr Jones
I am sure we all agree that climate change is one of the central issues of our time. It is therefore critical that the reformed planning system addresses that issue effectively. That is why the Bill sets out that local plans
“must be designed to secure that the development and use of land in”
the local planning authority areas
“contribute to the mitigation of, and adaption to, climate change.”
I think we can all see from the last few days and what is likely to happen early next week that things have changed even since a few short years ago, when you and I first came into this House, Mrs Murray. Also, the national planning policy framework already requires local planning authorities to plan in line with the objective and provisions of the Climate Change Act 2008. But we recognise the need to do more. That is why the Government also made a commitment to update the framework to ensure that it contributes to climate change mitigation and adaptation as fully as possible. I heard what the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich said. I have undertaken previously during this sitting to write to him about the review of the national planning policy framework, and I will include the response to the question that he has just asked.
We will also be consulting on this as part of wider changes needed to deliver on the Bill’s ambitions after Royal Assent, and we will consult shortly on some immediate changes to deliver on commitments in the British energy security strategy, to help lower energy bills and increase our energy security.
Therefore, although I understand the spirit of this amendment, the Government must oppose it to ensure that this important issue can be properly considered and addressed through a review of national policy, which will go out to consultation next year, but I will come back, with further information, to the hon. Gentleman. On that basis, I hope that he will withdraw his amendment.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the Minister for that detailed response, but what I did not hear was a convincing argument as to why the Government cannot accept this amendment, which would simply alter the definitions of climate change mitigation and adaptation in the Bill so that they aligned with the legislation that we have been talking about. We feel quite strongly on this matter, and I will press the amendment to a Division.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Sixteenth sitting) Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateDepartment: Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities
Matthew Pennycook
Main Page: Matthew Pennycook (Labour - Greenwich and Woolwich)Department Debates - View all Matthew Pennycook's debates with the Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities
Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Sixteenth sitting)
Matthew Pennycook ExcerptsTuesday 19th July 2022
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 19 July 2022 - (19 Jul 2022)
Tim Farron
Good morning, Mr Paisley; it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship on this lovely day. I am grateful for the opportunity to move the amendment and to speak to new clauses 38 and 39.
I volunteered for this Committee for many reasons: to spend time in great company and to be involved with a Bill that gives great opportunities to make a difference for this country, if we get it right. However, my fundamental motivation was to try to address a problem that has afflicted my community in Cumbria, and others, for a number of decades, and which I referenced in my maiden speech more than 17 years ago. That problem has got catastrophically worse in the last two years.
Before the pandemic, the average house price in my constituency was about £250,000, and the average household income was about £26,000. In the lakes and the dales, there is a much greater disparity in scale, where average house prices were already pushing towards £500,000 and average household incomes were no greater than in the rest of the district. There were 5,500 people on a council house waiting list and we have fewer social rented properties than that. Second home ownership was creating massive problems with under-population in villages that were losing their schools, their post offices and their bus services. In many communities, more than 50% of properties were empty.
Even before the pandemic, there was a huge problem. We have pushed the Government to take action for years, but we have seen precious little action. Since the pandemic, the situation has gone from crisis to catastrophe and urgent action is needed. The Government are dragging their feet; the one or two things they have talked about doing to address those issues will not even touch the sides.
Let us look at the situation now. Between June 2020 and June 2021—we are awaiting the figures for this year—in South Lakeland alone there was a 32% rise in the number of holiday lets. That area includes the most populated parts of the Lake district and the Yorkshire dales, and there was a colossal number of holiday lets to start off with, so where does a rise of 32% come from? They were not built for the purpose; they were long-term lets that migrated into short-term lets or Airbnbs.
According to estate agents, up to 80% of all house transactions in the last two years fall into the second homes market—to people who own a property but do not live in that property. From live information—literally, given yesterday—AirDNA says that within our community there are 8,111 short-term available lets. Rightmove sent a snapshot yesterday of 262 long-term lets, which means that there are 35 times more short-term lets in our community than long-term lets. We are seeing lakeland clearances, which have taken place in just a couple of years. People have been evacuated and expelled from the communities where they served and worked, where they may have grown up, where they sought to retire. People of all ages, not just the working-age population, have been evicted under section 21. Typically, those homes then migrate instantly into the Airbnb market.
Let me give you some examples. Debbie in Windermere, a hotel manager, was evicted from her property under section 21 and had to move to Lancaster, 30 miles away. She could find no way of staying in that community. As a consequence, that hotel is still without a manager. I think of a couple in Ambleside: him a chef, her a teaching assistant. They have one child in school and one about to go to school. They have been evicted from their property, which is now worth five times more on Airbnb than they were paying for it. They do not live anywhere in Cumbria now. They both had to give up their jobs and pull their children out of school and nursery, robbing that community of their services and their work.
I also think of Mike, who I spoke to on Saturday. He works in Windermere and lived in Troutbeck Bridge, just two or three miles up the road. He was evicted from his long-term let there, where he had lived for years, and he now has to live in Morecambe. It is a lovely place, but it is 30 miles away. He will soon have to give up his job. Good luck to his employer in finding anyone to replace him.
In the relatively small Yorkshire dales town of Sedbergh, 24 people were evicted during a two-week period in April. Not a single property is available on Rightmove to help those people. There is no doubt whatsoever of the reasons for that. I have some schools in our national parks reporting drops in school rolls of between a fifth and a third of their entire school numbers over the past two years. There are consequences to inaction. We are talking about the death of communities. It is happening as we speak.
We are seeing the annihilation of the workforce. In a study a few weeks ago, 63% of Cumbria Tourism’s members reported that they had to operate below capacity last year because they could not find staff. The workforce is being expelled at a rate of knots. What is the impact of that on our economy? Cumbria Tourism is the biggest employer in Cumbria, contributing £3.5 billion to the Exchequer. Our businesses are underperforming because they are understaffed, because the workforce has been cleared out. In Sedbergh, again, just a few weeks ago—in a snapshot of this one dales town—there were 104 unfilled vacancies. By the way, there are zero spaces available for any long-term let on Rightmove.
Look at the care sector. In the census report a couple of weeks ago, we saw a 30% rise in retirement age groups in our communities. Subsequently, there is a massive rise in the demand for care and a massive drop in the number of people available to provide that care. A tragedy is happening on our doorsteps and within our communities, and not just in the lakes and dales, but elsewhere in Cumbria and other parts of rural Britain. What we are seeing is the tragedy not only of divided families, but of lost services—the impact on schools under pressure and on bus services being lost because of a lack of an active, full-time population in our communities.
Those of us who live in or around a national park—I have the honour of representing two—are not trying to hold them tightly and keep them for ourselves. We want to share them with the country. We are stewards of our national parks for the whole country. However, due to Government inaction and the market being broken, we are seeing our communities and national parks being turned into no-go zones for anybody who is not a millionaire.
There is nothing in the Bill that even touches the sides of being able to tackle this crisis. I want the Government to tackle it with the urgency and speed with which the problem itself is developing. Rarely would we find anything like this amendment and these new clauses when looking at legislation, but they are genuinely the silver bullet to give communities the power to take back control and ensure that they breathe life back into those communities.
I will briefly talk the Committee through the amendment and the new clauses. New clause 38 would provide local planning authorities with the power to make a difference. Under current planning criteria, a permanent dwelling, a second home and a holiday let are all the same category of use, technically. Practically, of course they are not the same category of planning use; they are three very distinct categories. All that the new clause would do is allow local council planning authorities in the Lake district and the Yorkshire dales to be able to differentiate between the three. In a community such as Coniston, where more than half of the homes are not lived in all year round, the council will be able to set a cap and say, “No more.” These measures are about simply giving our communities the power to decide their own destiny.
I simply ask the Minister to take this matter seriously and accept the amendment and the new clause. Together, they would allow local communities to decide their own destiny, to prevent the clearance of a local working-age—indeed all-age—population and ensure that our national parks and rural communities, not just in Cumbria but across the country, are available to everyone, not just the wealthy.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley. I will be relatively brief, both because we have discussed these issues extensively in Committee and because the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale made the case so comprehensively, speaking about the communities in his constituency and the lives and livelihoods of those who make up the communities.
As I have said before, one need only speak to any hon. Member with acute housing pressures of the kind the hon. Gentleman set out to realise that the Government have not got the balance right between the benefits of second homes and short-term holiday lets to local economies and the impact of excessive concentrations of them on local people. It has also become apparent over the course of previous debates that there is a divide between those on the Opposition side and those on the Government side when it comes to how urgently and how boldly we must act to address the problems of excessive second home ownership and its staggering growth. The hon. Gentleman gave truly staggering figures of short-term holiday lets, showing the problems they cause around the country.
The Opposition are clear that we need urgent action in a range of areas to quickly bear down on this serious problem. There is no doubt in my mind that the introduction of new planning use classes could—along with a suite of other measures, because more measures would be needed—go a long way to restoring the balance that we all agree must be struck, giving communities back a measure of control that they do not currently enjoy. For that reason, we wholeheartedly support the amendments and urge the Government to give them serious consideration.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley. I want to add my support to these amendments. The issue seems to be that holiday destinations in particular have been hit by the Airbnb market. I am sure the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale will be hearing from many of his colleagues about the implications it has, whether they are from Cornwall or Devon, and it is now spreading across the country.
York has been hit, in particular over the pandemic. We have seen a 45% increase in Airbnbs over that period, and it is hitting our communities hard. According to today’s figures, there are 2,068 Airbnbs in my community. We are seeing an extraction economy, where money is being taken out of our local economy predominantly by people from London and the south-east, who can afford to buy these additional properties. They are clearly trying to make a profit, but it comes at the expense of our communities.
We have heard about the impact on public services and the local economy. Hospitality venues are now not able to open full-time for the guest economy, because they cannot recruit the necessary skills. It is skewing the whole economy and our public services, in particular care work, and that is now orientating into our NHS. It is jacking up the house prices in the area, and we are getting this heated housing market because demand is so great. We hear about people coming and buying six, seven or eight of these properties at one go.
The result of this increased demand is that local people are impacted. They are faithfully saving for their mortgage, but when they go to put an offer on a house, someone undercuts them by tens of thousands of pounds, because they know that they will get the return. Renting a property in York costs, on average, £945 a month. An Airbnb stay over a weekend costs £700. That is why we are seeing this massive reorientation. Section 21 notices are being issued to people in the private rented sector to move them on to make way for Airbnbs.
The undercutting of prices is also impacting on the regulated B&B and guesthouse market, and because Airbnb and second homes are not regulated, the health and safety is not there, and there are so many other checks that are not in place. A registration scheme, which I know the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport is consulting on, is completely insufficient for addressing the challenge. It is a new challenge, and the Bill provides the Government with the opportunity to right the wrongs of what is happening and at the scale it is happening.
Creating these new classes would bring opportunity, but revenue can also be drawn from them. Many of the properties in question are classified under small business rates, so their owners do not pay council tax, but because they reach the threshold for small business rate relief, local authorities such as York are missing out on millions of pounds in revenue that they could get from such properties. It is therefore really important to categorise the properties and then look at how we use the categories.
I mentioned that in York we have 2,068 properties listed as Airbnbs; two weeks ago there were 1,999, so the number of properties that are going out to this new market is going up week by week. That is having a significant impact on York and York’s communities, so I trust that the Minister will not only support the amendment but engage in a wider discussion about what is happening to our communities, particularly in holiday destinations, so that we can ensure that, through this legislation, there is a suite of policies to ameliorate that market.
Tim Farron
We have just talked about what we do with existing housing stock and about seeking to make sure that it is retained and that we increase the amount that is available for permanent occupancy, for all the reasons I set out earlier. The amendment would tackle extreme situations, using some admittedly extreme measures, to ensure that new build also provides for the needs of local communities.
I want to stop for a moment to make it clear that we are not saying, “Only homes for locals.” We are delighted for anybody to come to Cumbria to become new locals and part of our community, to work and to contribute. We are proud of our diversity and of being a welcoming community, but let us ensure that the houses we build are affordable.
It is a pleasure to represent the Lake district and the Yorkshire dales, as well as the Arnside and Silverdale area of outstanding natural beauty, which has many of the features, including some of the planning powers, of a national park. Any property that goes on the market in those areas will be snapped up within seconds for a premium price. That includes new properties that are potentially built for local occupancy. It is easy to get around the occupancy clauses: people can buy the properties and then turn them into holiday lets quite quickly or move away from the area and use them as second homes, so the occupancy clauses are no protection.
The amendment would give planning authorities in national parks, which face extreme circumstances, radical powers that they can use, in some circumstances, for a period of time. We are not saying that they have to use them, but the powers would be there and available to them. If the Lake district or the Yorkshire dales wished to say, as I am sure they would if they were given these powers, that they would permit only developments that were genuinely affordable, which would normally mean social rented or shared ownership properties, they would be able to enforce that.
The experience in the not-too-distant past, when national park planning authorities had greater powers in practice than they do today, was that such provisions worked. There is a wrong view, which I think is held by some in this place, that the more restrictions there are, the less development we get. That is baloney. Practice proves that that is not true. If authorities are crystal clear to developers, housing associations and others that this is what they will get, and no more, people will either come forward or they will not.
I can call on experience in places such as Grasmere; Ambleside, where the Methodist and Anglican churches worked together to provide new affordable housing with the support of the national park; Windermere, where a similar thing happened; Coniston; and Hawkshead. The communities there were the diametric opposite to nimbys: they actively went out to find land to develop, which people gave up cheaply; they worked and fundraised to make sure things happened; and they left properties in their wills to make sure that collaborations could happen and we could build affordable houses. One reason why that was possible was that people potentially leaving a bequest knew that they could trust the national parks to ensure that their property would end up being redeveloped in an affordable way for a local family, which also meant that developers were clear that that was all that would be on the table. The evidence from 20 years’ experience is that if we are more restrictive, clearer and more directive, we will get the homes that we need for communities such as mine.
The simple fact is that in many parts of the country—not just Cumbria but especially there—if we build it, someone will buy it. By not giving local communities that power, we are simply building for demand, not for need. We can carry on building for demand, but as a result, we will lose our workforce and there will be no one to care for the older people in our community, of whom there are many, in their need. The economy will dissolve because of that lack of workforce, and communities will die.
We need to ensure that we build the houses so that they are there and people can afford them, and that affordable means affordable. We need to ensure that the national parks can enforce those criteria for a period of time, so that we can solve this problem through what we do with our new builds, as we should be doing with the properties that already exist.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale for tabling these amendments, the intention behind which we very much sympathise with. We know that excessive rates of second home ownership in rural and coastal areas are having a direct impact on the affordability, and therefore availability, of local homes, particularly for local first-time buyers. Correspondingly, we know that the marked growth in short-term and holiday lets in such areas is having a direct impact on the affordability and availability of homes for local people not just to buy but, as he said in relation to the previous group of amendments, to rent.
Research from CPRE, the countryside charity, makes it clear that our rural housing supply is disappearing and social housing waiting lists in rural areas are lengthening year on year. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is crucial that more is done to ensure that national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty have not just more affordable homes but—I make the distinction—more genuinely affordable homes.
If I am honest, however, I am concerned about the implications of the blanket nature of the restrictions provided for by these proposals. Although there is no doubt in my mind that the provision of genuinely affordable homes to buy and rent must be the priority in such areas, I worry slightly about the potential for unintended consequences, such as ruling out the provision of housing for general demand, which might be needed in some parts of the country to sustain the life of communities.
That said, I appreciate that these proposals are premised on giving communities discretion as to whether they use these powers, and I recognise and support the point that the hon. Gentleman is making with them. I hope the Government respond constructively.
Rachael Maskell
I, too, am sympathetic to these proposals, but I want to point out an area of unforeseen consequence. My constituency is not an area of outstanding natural beauty—although I would argue that it is—or a national park, but we sit just beneath the Howardian hills, and the dales and moors are not far away. If these blanket proposals and bans are orientated to those areas, the challenge is that they could heat up the Airbnb market even faster, particularly in somewhere such as York.
On the application process for a world heritage site, it would seem sensible for a world heritage site to be included in the criteria. I would compare the measure with a residential parking scheme: as we know, if we restrict parking on one street, people tend to park on the next street along, and we just build out and out. That may happen if we do not give flexibilities and opportunities to all areas.
Although I am really sympathetic to the sentiment behind these proposals and to the powers they would give, the scope should be broadened to enable all authorities to have the opportunity to control the housing and the lease of housing within their governance.
Tim Farron
I am happy to support this group of amendments and new clauses. Flood resilience is of huge importance. We are dealing with extreme weather—today is an example, but there are other days that are extreme in a different way. In my part of Cumbria, in the past 18 years we have had two storms deemed to be one-in-100-year events, and a third that was deemed to be a one-in-200-year event. That does not add up, does it? It is because our weather and our climate are changing. We need to mitigate, prepare and build to protect homes, families and businesses.
Most recently, in 2015 Storm Desmond devastated the town of Kendal as well as many parts of Burneside, Staveley and other communities. The human and economic consequences are vast, and vastly greater than spending money up front to do the right thing in the first place. It is very wise to build into the Bill powers to ensure that neighbourhood development plans and planning controls can bring on board very powerful bodies that otherwise might seek to shirk their responsibility to ensure people are protected. I am thinking in particular of the water companies, which made nearly £3 billion in profit last year, and the extent to which they are compelled to ensure their drainage and other facilities can cope with new development, not just in that small parcel of land but as regards the impact on the wider community.
There is also the work with farmers, who are desperate to be part of the solution, to make sure we retain water in the uplands so that we slow the flow and minimise the impact on communities. The River Kent is one of the fastest-flowing rivers in the country and only 20 miles or so long from source to sea. When floods come they are dramatic, but the water can be down to quite a reasonable level within 24 or 48 hours. It therefore stands to reason that if we can hold back some of that water in the uplands by investing there and supporting farmers to do that, we can save millions of pounds and thousands of people from the terrible experience of being dramatically flooded.
It is about making sure we build in those things in the first instance. As we speak, we are building flood resilience networks in Kendal: both what can be seen by the river in the town and what cannot be seen up in the hills, where we are seeking to retain the water by tree planting, bunding and other work to slow the flow. We should be doing that sort of stuff in advance, before communities get devastated, as happened to mine. That is why the amendments are important. They are about making sure we build resiliently for the future so that other families do not have to go through what families in my community did in December 2015, with the devastation of soggy, sodden Christmas presents and wrecked Christmas trees on the sides of streets in the estates and people utterly devastated by what they had experienced, unable to get back into their homes for six months or more. Surely it is possible for us to prevent these things. With the right powers and provisions, we can.
Matthew Pennycook
I rise to strongly support this important group of amendments, and I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle and for York Central on proposing them. It is right that my hon. Friends seek to amend the Bill to ensure that planning rules on flood prevention and mitigation are strengthened and that the planning system responds better to the challenges associated with drought. As has been said, the amendments would not only ensure that we enhance the resilience to flooding of communities across England, but reform how the insurance and reinsurance markets operate in terms of data accuracy and how premiums take into account mitigations and defences, as well as beneficially extending reinsurance to small and medium-sized enterprises.
Although I am more than happy to acknowledge the positive steps taken by the Government on flood prevention and mitigation in recent years, such as the publication of the adaptation communication 18 months ago and the investment allocated to improving flood defences up to 2027, it is clear that there has been an absence of cross-departmental working when it comes to addressing the issue explicitly in the Bill. When the adaptation communication was published in 2020, it promised that climate mitigation would be integrated across Government Departments, including, most importantly in this case, infrastructure and the built environment. It is therefore problematic that the Bill lacks any explicit reference to flood mitigation and, indeed, references the term “flood” only once in relation to what charging authorities may spend the proposed infrastructure levy on. It is laudable that mitigating and responding to climate change has been included in the Bill as a new requirement for development plans and spatial development strategies. However, the Bill as a whole does nowhere near enough to address the specific issue of the susceptibility to flooding experienced by so many of our communities.
The risk and frequency of flooding will only increase as global temperatures rise and its effects, as hon. Members will know, can be devastating, not only in terms of its impact on people’s lives but on businesses and the economy. How can we plan, for example, to respond to the increased frequency and potency of flooding events when surface water flood hazard maps for the UK have not been improved upon since 2013? They urgently need updating. Indeed, that issue speaks to a wider concern, which is the dearth of accurate, up-to-date and publicly available data about flood prevention and risk. If accepted, new clause 3 would ensure that data, so that property owners could better plan for surface water flooding in areas at risk and, importantly, insurers could more accurately assess risk and therefore insurance premiums. There is widespread support in the sector for the amendments for that very reason.
When it comes to insurance, the introduction of a certification and accreditation system for flood prevention and mitigation improvements, which new FCA rules would ensure were taken into account in setting rates, is an entirely sensible reform that should help lower premiums. I hope the Government will consider accepting new clauses 4 and 5 on that basis.
Rachael Maskell
I am grateful for the debate. I thank the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale for highlighting the importance of the upper catchment management work, which is so necessary for mapping what will happen across other communities, and the Environment Agency’s commitment and the work it is doing in that arena.
My hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich hit the nail on the head when he talked about the importance of cross-governmental working, which is clearly not at an optimum at the moment when addressing issues around flooding. While the Minister has talked through a number of steps the Government are taking, I refer him back to the 2016 national flood resilience strategy, which highlighted the importance of co-ordination across Government and of ensuring that resilience was built into the system. That is not happening at the moment. As much as policy may aspire to that, it has further to go. The amendments are therefore still relevant as the Bill does not meet the requirements of the communities that currently flood, and those that will flood in the future as we see weather patterns change and risk increase.
I am not planning to press the amendment to a vote, but I hope the Government will reflect on it, and on my amendment about drought, because this is a significant and serious issue. Right now we recognise that as we move forward we need to build in how we have sufficient water supply. That will be increasingly important. I reserve the right to bring the issue back up on Report, and to give the opportunity to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle to table her amendments too. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move amendment 110, clause 88, page 95, line 17, at end insert—
“(5) After subsection (4) insert—
‘(4A) A neighbourhood development plan which is in effect on the day on which section 88 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 comes into force may remain in effect contrary to the provisions of that section no longer than until the end of the period of five years beginning on the day on which that section comes into force.’”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
Clause 89 stand part.
New clause 35—Report about uptake of neighbourhood development plans—
“(1) Section 38A of PCPA 2004 (Meaning of “neighbourhood development plan”) is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (11C) insert—
‘(11D) The Secretary of State must prepare and publish an annual report on the uptake of neighbourhood development plans. The report must, in particular, set out—
(a) the uptake of neighbourhood development plans in less affluent neighbourhoods,
(b) the uptake of neighbourhood development plans in urban neighbourhoods, and
(c) the steps that Government are taking to increase this uptake.’”
Matthew Pennycook
Statutory neighbourhood plans became part of the system in 2011 when they were introduced under the Localism Act 2011 as a formal part of the development framework. The concept of neighbourhood planning is far from problem free, but we support it in principle as an important means of giving communities a greater say in where future development takes place, how it is designed and what infrastructure is provided with it.
To the extent that it enables communities better to shape development in any given area, neighbourhood planning can—although it is by no means always the case—increase public engagement, reduce the number of objections to planning applications and boost housing supply over and above local authority targets. As the Minister noted previously, neighbourhood plans can also provide communities with an important tool to mitigate the impact of acute housing pressures in their localities—for example, on the issue of excessive rates of second-home ownership and the marked growth of short-term and holiday lets that we have considered a number of times.
Clause 88 is a straightforward one in that it merely confirms the statutory role of neighbourhood planning and sets out a list of the policies and requirements that a neighbourhood plan may include. We welcome that confirmation and clarification, as well as the sensible new requirement set out in proposed new subsection (2B) for the qualifying body to design its neighbourhood plan, so far as it considers it appropriate, in such a way that it contributes to the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change.
I wish to raise two specific issues with the Minister, one that relates directly to the implications of the clause for existing neighbourhood plans and another that relates to the future of neighbourhood planning more widely. The first issue concerns potential conflict between a neighbourhood plan and a national development management policy. As the Minister would expect given the arguments we have set out in previous debates, we take issue with proposed new subsection (2C)(b) under clause 88, which stipulates that a neighbourhood plan cannot be inconsistent with any NDMP. However, given that I have set out the Opposition’s reasoning on that issue in considerable detail in relation to both clause 83 and schedule 7, and proposed new paragraphs 15(c) and 15(ca), I do not intend—the Minister will be relieved to hear—to rehearse our arguments once again in the specific context of neighbourhood plans. I do want to know what will happen in the case of any one of the 1,061 neighbourhood plans, which have already been approved via referendum, that turn out not to be consistent with an NDMP published in the future.
Matthew Pennycook
I will continue to live in hope—we may get there one day. I am grateful for the Minister’s response; I noted carefully what he said about transitional arrangements, and I think I understood it. However, if he will allow me, I will perhaps at come back to him a later date to seek further clarification on precisely how an existing approved neighbourhood plan could be brought into line with future NDMPs, because there remains a slight concern about the implications.
On take-up, I am disappointed, as the Minister would expect. He will not accept what is, as I said, not a particularly onerous requirement to produce an annual report that sets out progress towards the objective. However, I hear what he said about pilots, and I am very interested to see the work that they produce. The key point, which I think he accepts, is that neighbourhood priority statements for less affluent and complex urban environments cannot be the only means of driving uptake. To drive uptake, we must do much more in a variety of areas. However, he has partly reassured me, and on that basis I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 88 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 89 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 90
Requirement to assist with certain plan making
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move amendment 104, in clause 90, page 96, line 15, leave out “public”.
This amendment, together with Amendments 105 to 108, would enable plan making authorities to require a prescribed private body to assist the authority in relation to the preparation or revision of a relevant plan by the authority.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 105, in clause 90, page 96, line 18, leave out “public”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 104.
Amendment 106, in clause 90, page 96, line 23, leave out “public”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 104.
Amendment 107, in clause 90, page 97, line 4, leave out “public”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 104.
Amendment 108, in clause 90, page 97, line 5, leave out
“and certain of whose functions are of a public nature”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 104.
Matthew Pennycook
Clause 90 inserts new section 39A into the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, setting out a requirement on specific bodies to assist in the plan-making and plan-revising process. The explanatory notes to the Bill make clear that the clause is intended to support the more effective gathering of the information required for local planning authorities that produce local, strategic, supplementary and other forms of plans.
It appears to us that the clause is the Government’s answer to the question of how to sustain engagement and co-operation between plan-making authorities and relevant bodies after the removal of the duty to co-operate, which is an issue that we debated in relation to schedule 7. However, it is not at all clear how the clause interacts with the Government’s stated intention to introduce a “more flexible alignment test” in planning policy. I would be grateful—again, we have touched on the issue—if the Minister could set out in more detail precisely how the clause and that forthcoming alignment test will ensure that there is sufficient engagement and input in the plan-making process on the part of those bodies that are important contributors to the process of delivering infrastructure at local or strategic levels.
That question aside, we welcome the new duties that the clause places on infrastructure providers to engage with the production of local plans, which is an entirely sensible measure. However, we question why the prescribed bodies referred to in the clause are confined to those that are public. If one considers even for a moment which types of body it might be useful and necessary for a plan-making body to engage in terms of the information required for the production of a plan, it quickly becomes apparent that they would include private infrastructure providers—for example, private utility companies.
Amendments 104 and 105 to 108 would revise clause 90 in a way that would enable plan-making authorities to require prescribed private bodies to assist in the plan-making and plan-revising process. They achieve this simply by clarifying that prescribed bodies need not be public in terms of their ownership or have functions that are entirely of a public nature. The Minister will no doubt surprise me with the ingenuity of his reasoning as to why the amendment is unnecessary, but I cannot imagine what reason the Government have to oppose it. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Tim Farron
This is a really useful amendment, and I hope that the Minister takes it seriously. Utility companies have been mentioned already. When I think of Openreach, or United Utilities, a water company in my part of the world, I think about the impact that these businesses have on our communities. The infrastructure that they oversee and are responsible for is fundamental to the wellbeing of those communities. For example, we have seen sewage on the streets in places such as Staveley and Burneside, and the answer from United Utilities is, “Put it a bid, and we’ll look at it in our next-but-one funding round.” Surely communities ought to have the ability to say to United Utilities or other water companies, or to broadband providers and other such bodies, that their access to the greater public realm and their almost monopoly position in the market mean they have a responsibility to those communities, which will be overseen by those in local authorities who have the right to make these decisions.
It is right that private bodies should be included; it should be specified in the clause. The amendment would help communities like mine to bring in hugely powerful and very wealthy outfits such as Openreach and United Utilities, so that they perform the role they should perform—to provide for every part of our community—and do not take advantage of their power and strength over the relative weakness of local authorities.
Mr Jones
As you have probably gathered during Committee sittings, Mr Paisley, I am not necessarily one for surprises, especially on such a hot and sunny day.
The Government support giving local authorities the full range of powers necessary to prepare robust plans. I can offer reassurance that that is our intention. The power as drafted will apply to those private sector bodies that authorities are likely to need to involve in plan making. Clause 90(6) sets parameters for which bodies can be prescribed. It requires them to have functions “of a public nature.” That might, for example, include utilities companies, which are privately owned but serve an important public function and should be proactively involved in the plan-making process. The clause does not exclude relevant private bodies where they are involved in public provision, but the amendments potentially extend the requirement to private landlords, voluntary groups and unrelated businesses, which would be disproportionate where those bodies do not have public functions that are likely to be relevant to plan making.
On alignment policy, the policy will require local planning authorities to engage with neighbouring authorities and bodies involved in their area. That will be covered in the future national planning policy framework. The power places the obligation on the bodies involved. I hope that with those reassurances the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Matthew Pennycook
To surprise the Minister—it is the other way round—I am entirely reassured by his response. The language in the clause is about allowing for private infrastructure companies to be involved in the plan-making process in terms of the provision of information. That is what I took from what he said. I appreciate what the Minister said about the potential disproportionate impact from drawing in other types of bodies; that was not the intention. On that basis, I am content and beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Rachael Maskell
I beg to move amendment 135, in clause 90, page 96, line 30, at end insert—
“(3A) Where regulations under this section make requirements of a local authority that is failing to deliver a local plan in a timely way, the plan-making authority must consult the local community on the contents of the relevant plan.”.
This amendment would require, in the event of a local authority failing to deliver a local plan in a timely way, those taking over the process to consult with the community.
I will not labour the point because we have already had extensive discussions about the need to break the deadlock in the planning system. York is a very live example of that need: the local plan is going through a very painful process and we are absolutely determined to see the plan amended rather than being imposed. To break the deadlock and to be able to move forward, it is right that communities get a greater say. I do not plan to push the amendment to a vote today, but I trust that the Minister is hearing the importance of being able to engage with communities in order to get the right outcomes in the planning system, particularly where there is deadlock and we are on the naughty step, or at the special measures stage of the process.
Matthew Pennycook
Main Page: Matthew Pennycook (Labour - Greenwich and Woolwich)Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Seventeenth sitting)
Matthew Pennycook ExcerptsTuesday 19th July 2022
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 19 July 2022 - (19 Jul 2022)
Mr Jones
Clause 96 is a placeholder clause. The Government’s intention is to replace it with substantive provisions later in the Bill’s passage.
New development is commonly met with hesitance from local residents—it is often perceived as a threat to the beauty of the area or as an unwanted disruption—usually because residents see it as imposed upon them and bearing little relationship to the character of the area. Fundamentally, people are more likely to support development that they feel they can control.
Street votes will provide a new way of consenting to development that will enable residents to come together and bring forward the development they want to see on their streets. A group of residents will be able to develop proposals to extend or replace properties on their street. They will have the option either to provide a detailed development specification, or to prepare a design code that any development they permit must comply with. Development proposals put forward by residents will be independently examined against a set of development and design rules set out in legislation to ensure that they meet high design standards and do not lead to adverse impacts on the local environment and the wider community. Planning permission will be granted only when an examining body is satisfied that the proposal has met these and other statutory requirements, and when the proposal is endorsed by a large majority of residents at referendum.
The use of street votes will be restricted in sensitive locations, such as the green belt. Street votes will encourage residents to consider the potential for new development on their streets. Where residents choose to take up the opportunity, street votes will help to deliver new or more spacious homes in places where they are most needed and in a way that is supported by the people who are most affected by that development. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
As the Minister has made clear, clause 96 is a placeholder clause. All it specifies is that the Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for a system that permits residents of a street to propose development on it and to determine, by means of a vote, whether that form of development is given planning permission. At the outset, I have to put on the record that we are instinctively uncomfortable with placeholder clauses of this kind. They are an implicit admission that a piece of legislation is incomplete and that policy in a given area has not been finalised. The absence of any detail about what substantive provisions might replace such placeholder clauses in future is an impediment to effective legislative scrutiny.
Furthermore, the increased use of placeholder clauses in recent legislation, as well as the general upward trend in the number of amendments that add new policies to a Bill part way through its passage or following completion, should be a cause of concern to any hon. Member who values good lawmaking. Nor are we satisfied with the reassurances set out in the explanatory notes to the Bill that any new system introduced by means of the clause will receive appropriate scrutiny—we are all familiar with the limitations of an affirmative procedure in that respect. We therefore seek from the Minister some sense—further to what he has just said—of what the new system will look like, how it will operate in practice and what its wider implications might be.
The basic concept of street votes is easy to grasp. We certainly appreciate that, at least in theory, democratically approved codes that permit development, or the extension or redevelopment of all the properties on any given street, may be a way to facilitate the gentle densification of inner suburbs—an outcome that would undoubtedly have a range of benefits, not least boosting productivity. The issue is whether and how such a system would work in practice. My strong suspicion is that any new street votes system introduced will likely be something of a damp squib and, ultimately, we will not see any significant uptake, which is largely why I struggle to get too worked up about the prospect of its introduction.
However, given the powers that the Government are seeking for themselves by means of the clause, we do need some answers from the Minister, and I ask that he provides them on six distinct areas. First, we deserve to know why the Government believe that an entirely new system for the hyper-local devolution of planning powers is required or, to put it another way, what problem are the clause and the substantive provisions to follow attempting to address.
I ask because the Minister will know that the Localism Act 2011 gives neighbourhood forums the power to create and vote on neighbourhood development orders. Such orders grant planning permission for specific types of development in a particular area following a referendum, thus enabling greater control over development, densification and design. That is essentially the same principle that lies behind the street votes concept. As such, is it not simply the case that for all the hype around the clause, it does little more than adjust the electorate for neighbourhood development orders from the neighbourhood level to the street? If that is the case, should we view the intention to introduce a new street votes system as an admission that NDOs have failed to achieve the objectives that the Government set for them, and what makes the Government think that street votes will be any more successful as an initiative?
Secondly, we should be told why the Government believe that a street is the appropriate spatial area for the powers. The Minister mentioned that it might give residents a greater sense of control but, further to the question I just put to him on neighbourhood development orders, is the choice of a street as the appropriate spatial area related to evidence that the size of the electorate involved in approving NDOs is the reason that initiative has not been taken up more extensively? Do the Government have any reason to think that street-level democratically approved codes will be utilised more extensively than NDOs?
Thirdly, we need to know what the Government believe the impact of street votes will be on housing supply and affordability. It stands to reason that successful street votes are likely to lead to substantial value uplifts for those properties that use the planning permission secured as a result. If a street votes to permit mansard roof storeys to be added to existing terraces, the homeowners who take advantage of that will increase the space within, and value of, their properties. However, I struggle to see how the benefit that those homeowners will gain from the new system will be shared in any way by those who do not already own their own home.
Street votes are unlikely to contribute much, if anything, to new housing supply. In practice, how many residents are likely to organise themselves to secure new powers to provide for infill development on their street? I suggest not very much. If, as seems more likely, street votes are largely used to add space and value to existing properties, the system could end up making it harder for first-time buyers to get on the housing ladder. Can the Minister therefore tell us whether the Department has modelled the likely impact of a street votes system on housing supply and affordability, and whether it is likely to exacerbate existing housing inequality? If not, why not, and will they do so before we get to Report and Third Reading?
Fourthly, local planning authorities deserve an indication of how the Department will assist them financially to carry out the new demands that will be placed on them as a result of the introduction of a new street votes system. We have already debated in previous clauses the parlous state of local planning authorities when it comes to capacity and resources. We have considered the new burdens placed on them as a result of numerous measures included in the Bill. If a street votes system is introduced, the Government must ensure that councils are given sufficient resources to oversee it.
We cannot have a situation, as we do at present with neighbourhood plans, where the cost of sending a plan to referendum nearly always outstrips the amount that local authorities can claim from central Government to hold them. The Government must also ensure that we do not replicate the problems experienced in the uptake of neighbourhood plans, with only affluent communities able to take advantage of them. What resourcing can local authorities expect to run a new street votes system? What steps will the Government take to ensure that less affluent communities are able to take advantage of it?
Fifthly, given the concerns expressed that street votes could prove to be an extremely divisive measure to relations between neighbours on a street, we deserve some sense of how the process might work. Will there be a minimum number of residents in any given street required to bring forward proposals to extend or redevelop properties on it, or can a single resident do so? If it is the case that a single resident can submit a proposal, what safeguards are in place to ensure that local authorities do not constantly have to put different proposals to a referendum of residents on a street?
Surely a vote should not pass if a significant minority of residents on a street are opposed to it. I think the Minister mentioned a large majority, but what does that mean? What threshold will apply to a street referendum? Are the Government minded to adopt the recommendation, made by Create Streets, that it be at least two thirds of residents on the electoral register, or Policy Exchange’s suggestion of at least 60% of votes cast? We all know that nothing gets as bitter as a dispute between neighbours, so I would like the Minister to respond to my questions and tell the Committee that the Government’s thinking when it comes to the process by which planning permission via this new system will be secured.
Finally, we need to know how a new street votes system will interact with local development plans and the Government’s wider housing and planning policy objectives. It is an obvious question, but could the Minister confirm that any street votes proposal will have to be in conformity with a local development plan in order to proceed to a vote? I think he mentioned that the new proposals must be examined: does that mean they need to be compliant with a local development plan in order to move to a vote?
How will a street votes system work in an area with a neighbourhood development order already in place, or a design code adopted as part of it? Again, will any proposals need to be found to be in accordance with an existing NDO or design code before it can go forward? Will the new provisions that the Bill puts in place for neighbourhood plans to ensure that they consider climate change mitigation and adaptation apply to street vote proposals, and will similar safeguards be put in place as those that clause 89 provides for in relation to neighbourhood plans, ensuring that street votes cannot be used to block development from taking place?
Matthew Pennycook
As the Minister outlined, clause 97 of the Bill inserts new sections into the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to provide for two new routes to apply for planning permission in respect of the development of Crown land in England—that is, land in which there is a Crown or Duchy interest. In the case of either route, the provisions in the clause will allow the appropriate authorities to apply for planning permission direct to the Secretary of State, rather than being subject to the same requirements and the same application processes as any other person undertaking development.
In such circumstances, the Secretary of State must notify the local planning authority whether or not they intend to decide the application. If they opt to determine it themselves, they can approve it conditionally or unconditionally or refuse it. They have to consult the local planning authority to which the application would otherwise have been made, but the authority would have no right to veto it.
The policy paper accompanying the Bill portrays the clause as a means simply to
“provide a faster and more effective route for urgent and nationally important Crown development”,
but we are concerned that, in practice, its effect is likely to be far less benign. Specifically, we are concerned about the implications of introducing such an open-ended measure, in terms of both removing appropriate and necessary limits on the exercise of Executive power and denying communities a chance to express views about development in their area and to signal their consent or opposition.
We appreciate fully that there are emergency situations where it is necessary to expedite the planning application process to facilitate essential development, and the construction of the seven Nightingale hospitals during the pandemic to provide critical and step-down care for patients is probably the best recent example—the process exists by which they could come forward, and they did. However, the broad scope of the provisions in the clause, which do not provide for any limit on the type of development that can be approved directly by the Secretary of State or in what circumstances, means that it could be used for a much wider range of proposals.
Let us take the system of large-scale accommodation centres that the Government have announced they intend to establish to house people seeking asylum while they await a decision on their claim. The system includes the “new, bespoke, reception centre” the Government plan to open on an ex-RAF base in Linton-on-Ouse in North Yorkshire for up to 1,500 people—a development that the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) has raised serious concerns about on a number of occasions.
The Committee will know that the Government have variously opened, or signalled their intention to open, centres accommodating—I use the term “accommodating” very loosely—asylum seekers in Penally in Pembrokeshire, Napier in Folkestone, Barton Stacey in Hampshire and in the shadow of Yarl’s Wood in Bedfordshire. All the sites were either on, or proposed for construction on, Crown land. All have been subject to controversy and, in the case of Penally and Napier, legal challenge—not least because of the lack of consultation with local communities in the areas where they have been, or were proposed to be, situated.
Rachael Maskell
I have very much been involved with the community around Linton-on-Ouse. The fact that there has not been any proper consultation on transportation issues or on the impact on the local community has caused real concern that the Government will just press ahead with these developments without considering those issues. Does my hon. Friend agree that a more thorough, thoughtful process needs to be put in place? Also, should we really be offering refugees this type of accommodation? They are clearly in a desperate situation and need community to be wrapped around them, not to be isolated away from people and services.
Matthew Pennycook
My hon. Friend gets to the heart of the matter. Our concern is that the powers provided for by the clause will facilitate precisely what she suggests: the driving through of centres such as the one in Linton-on-Ouse, regardless of their impact on the people placed in them or the local communities in which they are situated.
My understanding—the Minister is welcome to correct me—is that in establishing Penally and Napier, the Government sought to rely on schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, which relates to permitted development rights. In the case of Napier, the Home Secretary granted herself permission to extend the life of the facility for a further five years, without any public consultation, by using a special development order provided for by delegated legislation. In a judgment handed down on 24 June 2022, the High Court ruled that decision unlawful.
Why have I explained that history at length? Because it is difficult to be aware of that history and not assume that the powers in clause 97 are being introduced to provide a more definitive way of securing planning consent for development on Crown land, such as for asylum centres, irrespective of the harm that such centres might cause for those placed in them, or their impact on local communities, who under the clause will be denied any right to influence a decision taken by the Secretary of State without public consultation.
I listened carefully to the Minister, who was quite clear that the powers will be used only in “moments of crisis” and in “exceptional circumstances” when there is a clear and urgent need to do so in the wider public interest. The Minister can correct me, but I see nothing in the Bill defining “exceptional circumstances”, “issues of national importance” or a “clear and urgent need”. Labour feels strongly that it is essential to insert appropriate safeguards into the clause to ensure that there are limits to the use of these powers and that minimum requirements are in place to secure some measure of consent from affected local communities. Without a firm commitment that such safeguards will be introduced at a later stage, we believe that the clause needs to be removed from the Bill. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Tim Farron
I agree that the clause is too much of a blank cheque for the Government. The Minister said in support of the clause that the powers are for emergency use only, but if that is the case, he needs to set out far more specifically the terms for their deployment.
Members have spoken about asylum centres and the powers being a potential route to securing such sites. My concern is for those who are seeking asylum and going through that process. Having visited Napier barracks, I can tell the Committee that those who work there are good people who do their best to provide for the people staying there, many of whom have suffered huge trauma as a result of unimaginable experiences that we have never been through ourselves. There is no doubt, however, that that kind of camp-style site is no place for people who have escaped dreadful things and sought asylum. They are dealing with trauma and mental health issues, and have experienced appalling things. We are seeking to help them—I hope, given that the majority of people who make claims are genuine refugees and will, in time, be given the right to settle here—but how do these places help them to immerse and integrate themselves into society? That is just an aside on one of the potential uses of the clause and why it is particularly dangerous for those people, who are the most vulnerable in our society.
If we care about democracy—we are talking about levelling up and giving communities power—the Bill should not contain such an open-ended clause that seeks to undermine that power. I can understand why a Government would need emergency powers in some circumstances, but they should specify them, because otherwise the clause looks like overreach.
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move amendment 114, in clause 98, page 114, line 21, leave out lines 21 to 28.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 115, in clause 98, page 115, line 20, at end insert—
“(12A) In relation to an application for planning permission that is made to, or is to be determined by, the Mayor of London, a reference in this section to the local planning authority is to be read as a reference to the Mayor of London.”
Matthew Pennycook
Clause 98 is relatively straightforward, in that it simply makes provision concerning minor variations to planning permission, allowing for greater flexibility to make non-substantial changes that would not be possible at present without the submission of multiple applications by various different routes. We broadly welcome it: the change it will give effect to is long overdue, and it will simplify arrangements currently in place that were only ever intended as a short-term holding position. However, we believe that amendments 114 and 115 are necessary to ensure that the clause works as intended by resolving two issues of concern.
First, current arrangements ensure that if a variation to planning permission is sought, whether prior to completion or post completion, the circumstances of the day are taken into account when determining the section 73 application. That includes the policies in place at the time and any other material considerations. As drafted, clause 98(7) suggests to us that the circumstances at the time of the original grant of permission would be the framework for determining applications in future. We are concerned that this would mean, for example, that if a new local plan had been adopted since the original permission, that plan—which might, for example, include more stretching environmental standards—could not be applied in deciding whether or not to grant the section 73 application.
Similarly, many section 73 applications relate to the number of residential units or to floor space. As drafted, we are concerned that the decision maker would not be able to revisit the viability information or amount of affordable housing provided by the scheme, potentially creating a significant loophole that enables the avoidance of key policy requirements. We believe local planning authorities should be able to consider up-to-date planning policy and/or guidance when determining such applications to guard against adverse consequences, such as the prevention of increases in affordable housing or the application of more ambitious sustainability policies. Amendment 114 therefore proposes the removal of subsection (7) from the clause.
The second issue of concern relates to those powers devolved to the Mayor of London concerning strategic planning applications. As the Minister knows, the Mayor has powers to become the decision maker for strategic planning applications subject to certain provisions. However, we are concerned that the Bill as drafted only provides for the Secretary of State’s call-in powers, leaving a vacuum in relation to the mayoral powers. Amendment 115 therefore inserts new language after clause 98(12) to ensure that the powers of the Mayor of London to call in applications in accordance with the terms of the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 are taken into account. I hope the Minister will consider accepting both amendments.
Mr Jones
First, I want to thank the hon. Gentleman for his proposal in amendment 114, which seeks to remove subsection (7) of proposed new section 73B under clause 98. The effect of the amendment would be to broaden the scope of planning assessment and allow local planning authorities to reconsider the principle of development established under the existing permission to which the variation is sought under proposed new section 73B.
The purpose of the reform is to provide a clearer process for enabling sensible and practical changes to be made to planning permissions that are not possible under the existing framework without the submission of multiple applications under different routes. I am sure we can agree about the importance of ensuring that the planning system is flexible, responsive and proportionate to changes of circumstances to facilitate the delivery of appropriate development.
We are resisting the amendment because it goes against the overarching objective of allowing permitted schemes to evolve where changes are required without having to start the planning application process again. If we were to agree to the amendment, local planning authorities would be empowered to look again at the principle of development for the proposal and refuse it, even though the application may only be for a minor variation. That would undermine the new process and make it more difficult for developers to manage minor change through the planning system.
The ability to amend an existing grant of planning permission is an important flexibility afforded by the planning system. Clause 98 seeks to improve the current framework for varying a planning permission by providing a clearer, more certain and proportionate process for planning authorities, communities and applicants.
Post-permission changes to respond to, among other things, specific design matters and external factors is a common and critical part of the development process. Enabling flexibility for minor changes to development can support delivery in changing circumstances. In the majority of cases it is not proportionate or reasonable to require a new planning application or revisit the principle of development.
Under clause 98, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich can be assured that the new power has been drafted to ensure that planning permission under the new power will be permitted only where the local planning authority is satisfied that its effect will not be substantially different from that of the existing permission. Local planning authorities have the power to determine whether changes would constitute a substantial difference from the existing permission on a case-by-case basis. That allows for consideration of local and development-specific context.
The “substantially different” test would be assessed against the existing planning permission to ensure that the cumulative impacts of changes to a permission are acceptable in planning terms. In addition to consideration of the existing permission, the planning merits of the proposed change may include consideration of any previous changes made to the existing permission.
I can also assure the hon. Gentleman that the process for applications made under proposed new section 73B will be set out in secondary legislation. We will consult on the details of publicity and consultation for the applications following the passage of the Bill, but I want to emphasise that we will seek to engage widely with the sector to ensure that the new route works. I therefore hope that the hon. Member will withdraw amendment 114.
Amendment 115 would clarify that section 73B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 applies to the Mayor of London, in his capacity as local planning authority, when determining applications of potential strategic importance. It is similar to the provision under subsection (12) of that Act for the Secretary of State when he is determining applications under that section.
Although I agree with the principle behind the amendment, it is more appropriately addressed by a consequential amendment to section 2A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. That Act provides that if the Mayor is determining applications of potential strategic importance, he is the local planning authority, and the references to local planning authorities in new section 73B should apply to him.
It is likely that a number of consequential technical amendments will need to be made to provisions in the Town and Country Planning Act as a result of the introduction of section 73 provisions to vary permissions. We propose to use the powers set out in clause 191 to do that. This specific example is one such amendment that we could consider. In view of my explanation, I respectfully ask the hon. Member to withdraw his amendment.
Matthew Pennycook
Amendment 114 raises an extremely technical matter. I listened carefully to the Minister and I will revisit what he said. I hope he understood that I mean that planning applications must evolve when changes are required. The amendment does not seek to ensure that the principle of development is ever revisited, just that when minor variations are applied for, that updated planning policy and guidance are taken into account. We think that is important. I will go away and study carefully what he said.
On amendment 115, I am grateful for the clarification about where these matters might best be dealt with. I am grateful that the Minister will go away and give that further consideration. We think that the Mayor’s powers need to be formally taken into account when making the changes that the clause makes. On that basis, I am happy not to press either amendment, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Eighteenth sitting) Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateDepartment: Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities
Matthew Pennycook
Main Page: Matthew Pennycook (Labour - Greenwich and Woolwich)Department Debates - View all Matthew Pennycook's debates with the Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities
Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Eighteenth sitting)
Matthew Pennycook ExcerptsTuesday 6th September 2022
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 6 September 2022 - (6 Sep 2022)
Mr Jones
As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley. I hope that colleagues had a good summer and, in many ways, are suitably refreshed and raring to go with our consideration of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill in Committee.
These three amendments are aimed at ensuring that proposed new section 93G of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which is created by clause 99, works as intended. The amendments propose two changes. First, new section 93G does not refer to the correct section of the 1990 Act as the basis for the grant of planning permission. Therefore, the two technical corrections set out in Government amendments 74 and 75 are considered necessary to make clause 99 legally accurate. Secondly, to ensure that references in new section 93G concerning when new development has begun have the same meaning as those elements set out in existing section 56(2) of the 1990 Act, a consequential amendment is required. This is set out in Government amendment 76.
Overall, the amendments will ensure that clause 99 works as intended, without ambiguity. For those reasons, I hope that members of the Committee support them.
Amendment 74 agreed to.
Amendments made: 75, in clause 99, page 117, line 25, leave out “58(1)(b)” and insert “70”.
This amendment corrects a cross-reference.
Amendment 76, in clause 99, page 117, line 29, at end insert—
“( ) In section 56 (time when development begins), in subsection (3), after ‘92,’ insert ‘93G,’.”—(Mr Marcus Jones.)
This amendment adds a consequential amendment to section 56 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (which determines the time when development begins).
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to reconvene after the summer recess under you in the Chair, Mr Paisley.
Clause 99 will insert proposed new section 93G into the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as the Minister said. The new section will require those carrying out certain development types to serve a commencement notice to the relevant local planning authority before any development takes place. Such development notices will be required to outline the expected start date of construction, the details of the planning permission, the proposed delivery rate for the scheme, and other relevant information. The example in the explanatory notes accompanying the Bill suggests that this provision will most likely apply to large-scale residential schemes as a means, albeit a limited one, of preventing land banking and slow build-out by larger developers.
We welcome this sensible new duty. However, I would be grateful if the Minister provided further clarification as to what kinds of developments are likely to fall within the “prescribed description” bracket in subsection (1)(b) of the proposed new section and therefore be required to submit one of the new commencement notices.
Mr Jones
As I am sure the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, the description of the particular type of development he refers to will be dealt with in regulations and we will bring forward further details in due course. We will do so in consultation with both local authorities and industry.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 99, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 100
Completion notices
Tim Farron
I gather it is a struggle to get back into the Toon afterwards—I will cadge a lift to the Bigg Market with you.
My concern is—this is why the amendment is important—that when we talk about planning and the powers that communities have, so often Governments, particularly this one, listen to a range of voices, but especially to the interests of developers. Here is an opportunity for the Government to listen to and give power to communities. In my constituency and around the country, there will be many instances like the one referred to by the hon. Member for South Shields, where planning permission has been given, work begins and then it is not completed. The powers available to the local council or local planning authority—let us be honest, we are talking about the powers available to the local community to have any control over all that—are very limited.
If the Government accepted the amendment, it would indicate that they are serious about empowering communities over the things that happen in them. That way, we are not allowing things to happen to communities, but allowing communities to have real sovereignty over what happens within their boundaries.
Matthew Pennycook
Very briefly, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields on this excellent amendment, which we support. She made clear that the problem she has highlighted of private plots lying derelict for extended periods of time with no real prospect of development being completed has a real impact on local communities. Allowing the 12-month completion notice deadline to be circumvented in the circumstances set out in the amendment, with the proportionate requirement set out in proposed new subsection 3B, is sensible and we urge the Government to consider it seriously.
Mr Jones
I listened closely and carefully to what the hon. Member for South Shields said. I am sure she knows that because of the role of Ministers in the planning system, I cannot discuss that particular situation in detail, but I can say that I am aware of such situations, even in my own constituency. I am sure there are similar situations across the country.
Amendment 170 relates to the proposed updated legislative framework for completion notices in clause 100. Those notices are an existing tool available to local planning authorities that can be served on developments that, in the opinion of the local planning authority, will not be completed in a reasonable period. We want to equip local planning authorities with the tools necessary to deal with sites that have experienced long periods of inactivity or slow delivery. That is why, through clause 100, we propose to modernise the procedure for serving completion notices to make them simpler and faster to use, giving more control and certainty to local planning authorities in the process. To achieve that, clause 100 will remove the need for a completion notice to be confirmed by the Secretary of State before it can take effect and allow for a completion notice to be served on unfinished developments sooner, providing the planning permission has been implemented.
Amendment 170 proposes two fundamental changes to clause 100. First, there would be a shorter completion notice deadline below the current 12-month minimum in certain circumstances. Those are where a local planning authority is of the opinion that development has not taken place on a site for a prolonged period; that there is no reasonable prospect that the development would be completed in a reasonable period; and that it is in the public interest to serve a notice.
While I support the intention, I remind the Committee that completion notices, when served by a local planning authority or the Secretary of State, must provide the recipient with an opportunity to complete the development. To put it another way, a completion notice requires a person to use or lose their planning permission. Therefore, that person must be afforded the chance to use the planning permission and complete the development before the granting of that permission is removed. Providing the opportunity to complete is a critical aspect of the procedure governing the use of completion notices and reflects the longstanding position that planning permission is a development right and that revoking that right should be subject to compensation.
Matthew Pennycook
Clause 100 would amend the provisions in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 relating to completion notices. It does so by removing two requirements: that the Secretary of State must approve a completion notice and that the notice must be served only after the deadline for commencement of the planning permission has passed. We welcome these sensible revisions to the 1990 Act. I do, however, have two questions for the Minister, but I am more than happy for him to get back to me in writing if needed.
First, given that the changes sought by clause 100 are intended to work in conjunction with the new duty provided for by clause 99 on commencement notices, will the Minister explain why such notices are restricted to certain types of as yet undefined development, while the changes made to completion notice provision will continue to apply to all types of development? Secondly, subsection (2) of proposed new section 93H makes it clear that a local planning authority can serve a completion notice if it is of the opinion that the development will not be completed “within a reasonable period”—a power that in theory would allow the cases my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields just raised to be addressed in a timelier manner. Will the Minister clarify what is meant by “within a reasonable period”? If he cannot, can he tell us who will determine what it will mean in due course and whether there will be any limits whatsoever, given how ambiguous the phrasing is?
Mr Jones
On the first question, I will take up the hon. Member’s offer to write to him. To his second point, that reasonable period of time will be set out in guidance. The local planning authority will be the one to deal with the matter directly, rather than getting the Secretary of State involved. The authority will be able to determine how to deal with a particular situation by taking into account the factors relating to each development involved.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 100 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 10 agreed to.
Clause 101
Time limits for enforcement
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Jones
The Government are clear that effective enforcement action is important to maintain public confidence in the planning system. This chapter introduces a number of measures long called for by colleagues in this place to strengthen the enforcement powers of local authorities and to close loopholes. Local planning authorities presently have a wide range of enforcement powers, with strong penalties for non-compliance, to tackle such situations. While we believe that the current enforcement framework generally works well, we acknowledge that we could make improvements in a number of areas. We want to strengthen planning enforcement powers and sanctions, reinforcing the principle that unauthorised development should never be viewed as preferential to proper, up-front planning engagement.
Within the planning enforcement framework, there are statutory time limits for the commencement of enforcement action. It is necessary to have a statutory time limit to provide certainty when the passage of time means that enforcement action is no longer feasible. However, there are currently two time limits for commencing enforcement action, depending on the nature of the breach. For a breach of planning control consisting of building operations or the change of use to a single dwelling, the time limit for commencing enforcement action is four years. For any other breach of planning control, the time limit for commencing enforcement action is 10 years from the date of the breach.
Stakeholders have raised concerns that the four-year timeframe can be too short, and in some cases can result in opportunities to commence planning enforcement action being inadvertently missed. For example, a person may not initially raise concerns with their local planning authority, assuming that a neighbouring development has the correct permissions or will not cause disturbance. Should the development prove disruptive, they may then try to come to an agreement with the person responsible for the development. By the time they raise their concerns with the local planning authority, some time may well have passed. The local planning authority may not initially be aware of that, prioritising other investigations. When an investigation begins, it may then become clear that the time limits for commencing enforcement action have inadvertently passed.
The four-year time limit can cause frustration for communities, whose initial pragmatism may result in unauthorised, harmful development becoming inadvertently immune from enforcement action. The clause will bring the time limit to commence enforcement action in England to 10 years in all cases, either from the date of substantial completion or the date of the breach, depending on the specific nature of the breach. That will provide greater confidence to local planning authorities that they will have the time to take enforcement action, and indicate to the public that planning breaches are taken seriously and should never be viewed as a preferential approach to proper engagement with the planning system. I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 101 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 102 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 103
Enforcement warning notices
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move amendment 116, in clause 103, page 122, line 36, at end insert—
“(4) The Secretary of State must provide sufficient additional financial resources to local planning authorities to enable them to implement the provisions in this section.”
This amendment, along with New Clause 36, would require the Secretary of State to provide sufficient additional resources to local planning authorities to enable them to implement the changes required by Chapter 5 of Part 3.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 36—Duty to provide sufficient resources to local planning authorities for new burdens: enforcement of planning controls—
“The Secretary of State must provide commensurate additional financial resources to local planning authorities to enable them to implement the provisions in Chapter 5 of Part 3.”
See explanatory statement for Amendment 116.
Matthew Pennycook
Planning enforcement is vital if the integrity of the planning system is to be upheld. For that reason, we broadly welcome the measures set out in chapter 5 of this part of the Bill. Taken together, the amendment and new clause 36 would simply require the Secretary of State to provide sufficient additional resources to local planning authorities to enable them to implement the changes required by the provisions in this chapter.
As we discussed in relation to many previous amendments, we know that as a result primarily of local authority belt tightening in response to funding cuts by central Government, the resources dedicated to planning within local planning authorities have fallen dramatically over recent years. Planning enforcement has not escaped the impact of that general resource reduction. When it comes to the impact on enforcement activity, the figures speak for themselves: the Department’s own data on enforcement action show a marked decline in the issuing of planning contravention and enforcement notices over the past decade. Given that planning enforcement action, as opposed to the investigation of planning breaches, has long been classified as a discretionary service—rather than a statutory duty—our concern is that without sufficient additional resources many local authorities will simply determine to cut back on planning enforcement teams, rather than make full use of the new and enhanced powers provided for by the clauses in this chapter.
The National Association of Planning Enforcement, based on feedback from its members, has detailed how funding pressures are even leading some local authorities to consider removing their planning enforcement services budgets altogether, or reducing the provision to essential services only, with the suggestion that that means electing only to enforce certain breach types or taking enforcement action only on a select number of cases. In evidence recently submitted to the Select Committee on Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, the Royal Town Planning Institute highlighted that budgetary pressures were now so acute for some local authorities that they are prepared to risk the challenge of potential judicial reviews and formal complaints to the ombudsman, rather than spend resources they simply do not have on staffing planning enforcement teams.
We believe that it is right for clear expectations to be set when it comes to local authorities fulfilling their planning enforcement obligations. However, they deserve to be properly resourced to carry out those obligations and given adequate funds to undertake enforcement action, including in relation to biodiversity net gain. To the extent that the provisions in this chapter, including extending the period for taking enforcement action to 10 years in all cases and introducing new enforcement warning notices, clearly constitute additional work pressures on planning enforcement teams, it is only appropriate that local planning authorities receive sufficient additional resources to carry them out.
I hope that rather than merely once again paying lip service—as happened on so many occasions before the summer recess—to the need to ensure that planning authorities are resourced to deliver the reforms in this Bill, the Minister will feel able to demonstrate a commitment on the record to resourcing local planning authorities properly by either accepting our proposals or detailing precisely what additional funding authorities can expect in order to carry out the new functions.
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.
Matthew Pennycook
I regret to inform the Minister that I am not sufficiently reassured. I note what he said about fees and about the strategy the Department intends to bring forward. Yet, what I hear time and again in responses to amendments that seek to press the Government on local authority resourcing is a seeming unawareness of how acute the problem is. The Minister referred to it in very diplomatic terms as capacity and capability challenges, but it goes way beyond that. Local planning authorities are under acute pressure, which has a direct impact on planning services in those local authorities and, because it is a discretionary service, on the enforcement part of those planning services.
I am concerned to hear the Minister say that he does not think the provisions in this chapter constitute additional work pressures. It seems to me that they do. When looked at in the round, the measures introduced in the Bill certainly constitute additional work pressures on departments. I am not going to press these proposals to a Division, but we will come back time and again to the issue of local authority resourcing, because planning is under acute pressure in terms of capability and skills, and the Government have to provide stronger commitments as to what they will do to address that. 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
The retrospective planning application process is a necessary part of the planning system. It allows those who have made a genuine mistake to remedy the situation. However, we are aware that it is also used by people who have intentionally undertaken development without permission, who then attempt to delay enforcement action.
Prior to the Localism Act 2011, an appeal could be made both against the refusal of a retrospective application and against enforcement action, on the ground that permission ought to be granted. Through the 2011 reforms, we reduced the circumstances in which an appeal could be made, preventing an appeal on the grounds that permission ought to be granted if an enforcement notice was issued before the end of the statutory determination period. However, the reforms inadvertently created a loophole, which has allowed appellants to continue to appeal twice in certain circumstances, against the refusal or non-determination of a retrospective planning application and against an enforcement notice, on the ground that permission ought to be granted. Both appeals, in effect, assess the planning merits of the case.
The loophole exists because, in some circumstances, a local planning authority might not issue an enforcement notice before the end of the determination period for a related retrospective application. That could be because the local planning authority might have invited the retrospective application in the first place, and does not want to be seen to prejudge the outcome, for example. In such cases, if the development were subsequently found to be unacceptable and retrospective planning permission was refused, an enforcement notice would be issued after the end of the determination period.
There would remain two opportunities to obtain permission retrospectively: first, by appealing the refusal of the retrospective application, and secondly, by appealing the enforcement notice on the ground that permission ought to be granted. A similar situation would occur if the determination of the retrospective application were delayed and the appellant appealed the retrospective application on the ground of non-determination.
Therefore, the clause will extend the period during which an enforcement notice can be issued and during which an appeal on the ground that permission ought to be granted can still be prevented to two years. The applicant will not then be able to appeal an enforcement notice on the ground that permission ought to be granted during that extended period. Instead, they will have only one route to obtain planning permission retrospectively—through a successful appeal of the refusal or the non-determination of the retrospective planning application. Appealing an enforcement notice on other grounds will still be permitted.
The clause will reinforce the message that people should seek planning permission before they start a development. Where they do not do so, they should have only one opportunity to obtain planning permission after the unauthorised development has taken place so that the matter can be rectified as soon as possible. That will speed up enforcement action and prevent resources from being wasted assessing the planning merits of the same case twice. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.
Matthew Pennycook
I would like to make some further remarks on clauses 105 and 106. Clause 105 will give the Secretary of State a new power that allows them to dismiss an appeal in relation to an enforcement notice or an application for a lawful development certificate in England should it appear to them that the appellant is causing undue delays to the appeals process. This is another point of clarification, but I simply wish to get a sense from the Minister of what causing undue delays as per proposed new section 176(6) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 will be taken to mean in practice.
Clause 106 will amend sections 187A and 216 of the 1990 Act in relation to England to increase the maximum fine for failing to comply with either a breach of condition notice or a section 215 notice. We do not oppose those changes, but I would like reassurance from the Minister that the Government have properly considered the possibility that increasing the maximum fine in such a way might have the unintended consequence of discouraging from seeking retrospective permission those who have, for whatever reason, made genuine mistakes on their planning applications.
Mr Jones
The Government are committed to increasing opportunities for meaningful and early community involvement in planning decisions. Throughout the Bill, we are introducing measures that do just that. Communities should be given a say on developments that affect them, and should have those views taken into account when decisions are made. We are also keen to ensure that issues are dealt with early on, so that decisions are not unduly delayed. That is why we are introducing this minor but important change.
Clause 108 will make permanent the powers in sections 61W to 61Y of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 that enable the Secretary of State to mandate the types of applications for which applicants will be required to carry out consultations with those in the vicinity of the development, and with any other specified people—for example, statutory bodies—before submitting a planning application to the local planning authority. The powers also require applicants to have regard to any responses received in the pre-application consultation, including views expressed by local communities.
The powers have been used only to require pre-application consultation on onshore wind turbines where two or more turbines are being installed, or where the hub height is over 15 metres. We want to explore additional opportunities to use the powers where pre-application engagement will be most beneficial, and we will engage on that before bringing forward the necessary changes through secondary legislation. Making the powers permanent will allow the Government to further strengthen community engagement with the system. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 108 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 109 to 112 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 113
Infrastructure Levy: England
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move amendment 142, in clause 113, page 131, line 38, leave out “a charge” and insert “an optional charge”.
This amendment would ensure that application of the Infrastructure Levy would be optional rather than mandatory.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
Amendment 143, in schedule 11, page 283, leave out lines 27 and 28 and insert—
“(1) A charging authority in England may, if it determines that IL would be more effective than the community infrastructure levy for delivering infrastructure in its area and would not prevent it meeting the level of affordable housing need identified in its local development plan, in accordance with IL regulations, charge IL in respect of development in its area.”
This amendment to inserted section 204B, which is connected to Amendment 142, would ensure that application of the Infrastructure Levy would be optional rather than mandatory
Amendment 145, in schedule 11, page 289, line 18, leave out “or require”.
This amendment and Amendment 146, would give charging authorities discretion over the basis on which infrastructure levy rates are calculated.
Amendment 146, in schedule 11, page 289, line 30, leave out “or require”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 145.
Amendment 147, in schedule 11, page 308, leave out from line 40 to line 13 on page 309 and insert—
“may be given under subsection (4) for authorities that have adopted an IL charging schedule, only if it is necessary for–
(a) delivering the overall purpose of IL mentioned in section 204A(2), or
(b) avoiding charging a specific development more than once for the same infrastructure project through both IL and the following powers—
(i) Part 11 (Community Infrastructure Levy) (including any power conferred by CIL regulations under that Part),
(ii) Section 106 of TCPA 1990 (planning obligations), and
(iii) Section 278 of the Highways Act 1980 (execution of works)
unless this is essential to rendering the development acceptable in planning terms.”
This amendment would avoid restrictions being placed on the use of the community infrastructure levy, section 106 obligations, and section 278 agreements at the Secretary of State’s discretion unless necessary to avoid double charging for the same infrastructure provision.
Clause 115 stand part.
Matthew Pennycook
Part 4 of the Bill concerns the infrastructure levy, which is the Government’s proposed replacement for the present arrangement by which local planning authorities secure developer contributions, comprised of the community infrastructure levy—or CIL—and section 106 planning obligations, albeit with a significant role, as required, for section 278 agreements providing for permanent alterations or improvements to a public highway.
In our view, this new levy is one of the most consequential aspects of the Bill, with potentially far-reaching implications for not only the provision of core infrastructure but the supply of affordable housing. For that reason, I intend to spend a fair amount of time considering it.
Clause 113 introduces schedule 11, which would amend the Planning Act 2008 to provide for the imposition, in England, of the new levy. It is worth noting at the outset that the levy proposed in the Bill is a quite different proposition from the one suggested by the Government in their 2020 “Planning for the Future” White Paper. The latter was premised on a nationally set rate or area-specific rates, and its introduction was to be accompanied by the replacement of the current system of section 106 planning obligations. The amended approach proposed in the Bill, which allows charging authorities to set their own infrastructure levy rate or rates and retains an important role for section 106 on—albeit presently undefined—large sites, is without doubt an improvement on the excessively rigid system put forward in the White Paper.
However, the Opposition still have serious concerns about the possible implications of the revised infrastructure levy outlined by the Government. I deliberately use the word “possible”, because schedule 11 merely provides the basic framework for the levy; as with so much of this legislation, almost all the detailed design is to follow in regulations after some form of consultation.
In general terms, we have two main concerns about the new levy. First, when we consider how it might work as proposed, it is impossible to escape the conclusion that it will result in a system of developer contributions that is at least as complex as the present one; it is likely to be even more complex. In short, we worry that it may prove onerously complicated to operate in practice.
Secondly, there is good reason to suspect that the levy as proposed will fail to secure as much, let alone more, public gain from developers. In short, we worry that it will lead to less infrastructure and less affordable housing in the future, while putting the development of less viable sites at risk entirely.
Matthew Pennycook
That is a very apt point, and I will address it when I talk about how the levy might work in practice. One of the criticisms of the system that Ministers often cite are the problems relating to viability inherent in it. We know that local planning authorities struggle with that element of the system. This new levy introduces a need to value and incorporate viability into every planning decision covered by the new levy, rather than just those where viability is a consideration, so I think the resourcing pressures will be exacerbated by its introduction.
However, we accept that the Government have no intention of removing part 4 from the Bill, so our focus is firmly on trying to amend it and schedule 11 to mitigate any harmful effects of the levy. This first group of amendments on part 4 seeks to achieve that mitigation simply by reversing the presumption in the Bill that the use of the infrastructure levy will be mandatory for all charging authorities, and by fixing core elements of its design. In short, they all aim to provide for a greater degree of discretion.
Amendment 142 would amend clause 113 to make it clear that IL would be an optional charge. Amendment 143 would have the same effect in relation to schedule 11, while making it clear that the decision to adopt the levy would be premised on a judgment that it would be more effective than CIL for delivering infrastructure and would not prevent affordable housing need from being met. Making IL optional would necessitate allowing charging authorities that choose not to adopt it to continue to make use of the current system, so amendment 147 seeks to ensure that the Bill places no restrictions on the use of the community infrastructure levy, section 106 obligations and section 278 agreements, unless doing so is necessary to avoid double charging for the same infrastructure provision. To give charging authorities that freedom, it is necessary to leave out clause 115 entirely, given that it restricts the use of CIL to Greater London and Wales.
Finally, amendments 145 and 146 are designed to provide an additional safeguard by enabling charging authorities to determine the best way to calculate the amount of IL payable, rather than forcing them to base such a calculation on gross development value—a metric that, as I will come on to explain, we believe is likely to generate a host of serious problems if made the default means of calculating levy charges. We feel strongly that these amendments, by giving charging authorities discretion in these important respects, would help to avoid the obvious risks of imposing the levy universally, given the significant variation in development and land values not only across the country but in individual local authority areas, and would better allow charging authorities to tailor developer contribution arrangements to their local circumstances, so that they can get the best for their area.
I have already alluded to our belief that there are a series of inherent flaws in the levy as proposed. Chief among those are the fact that its proceeds will be expected to cover not only core infrastructure, but all affordable housing, and the fact that charges will be based on a percentage of final gross development value, or GDV. To convey to the Committee precisely why we believe that these features are so problematic, and why we feel so strongly that charging authorities should have discretion on whether to adopt the new levy, as well as on the metric on which it is calculated, let me give a worked example that shows the differences between the existing and proposed systems, based on my understanding of how the new levy is likely to operate.
Let us imagine, for the purposes of this worked example, that under the present developer contributions system, a local planning authority receives an application for a 100-home development, with 1,000 square metres of commercial floor space and an on-site community facility—a simple planning application. We will assume that the LPA has a local plan in place, and that it specifies a requirement of 50% affordable homes by unit; that would be 50 of the 100 homes on this hypothetical site. Let us imagine further that, as so often happens, the applicant uses viability assessments to reduce the affordable housing contribution levels to 40%. If that is approved, under the existing system, the local planning authority will know that in this scenario, despite the reduction on viability grounds, it will secure 40 affordable homes to buy or rent on this site, and with a local CIL rate of, say, £100 per square metre, it has certainty at the point of planning determination that the applicant is required to make a contribution of approximately £520,000 for infrastructure, taking into account social housing relief.
Now let us assume, in contrast, that this Bill receives Royal Assent unamended, and that the same local planning authority receives, some years from now, an identical application, having been forced to adopt the new infrastructure levy. It is an extremely challenging exercise to specify even hypothetical infrastructure levy rates, given the overall lack of detail at present and the numerous assumptions that are required to estimate what sort of rates will be needed to achieve the same level of value capture as at present—a subject I will touch on in more detail when we deal with the amendments relating specifically to rate setting. For the purposes of this scenario, let us specify that the authority’s levy charging schedule has set a minimum cost threshold of say, £3,000 per square metre; an IL rate of 50%—because, whatever the specific range, we know that IL rates will have to be far higher than CIL rates to cover the costs of all required infrastructure and affordable housing; and that the authority in question seeks to apply a ‘right to require’ amount—that is, the proportion of the levy proceeds to be allocated to on-site affordable housing— of 90%.
Under the new system, how many affordable homes would the levy implemented by this charging authority provide on our hypothetical site, and what contribution would the applicant make toward the provision of other local infrastructure? To answer those two relatively simple questions, one would need an assessment of the gross development value of the proposed development, GDV being the metric that the Government wants the new levy to be based on. To assess the development’s GDV, valuations would have to be secured. To accurately assess the value of the mix of flats and houses of different sizes, features and locations across the development, one would need to reference the value of comparable new build properties in the area, assuming those exist. To accurately value the commercial floor space in the proposed development, one would need to undertake an assessment of likely rents, using comparable local properties, again assuming that those exist. Those likely rents would then have to be capitalised using a yield based on an analysis of the sale of comparable commercial buildings in the area, again assuming those exist. The resulting figures would then have to be divided by net saleable and lettable floor space to generate a per square metre value for that commercial floor space. Generic or standardised information could of course be used, but that would run the risk of significantly increasing the margin of error, with consequential impacts for the amount of affordable housing and infrastructure provided on our hypothetical site.
Armed with those assessed values, and given that end value is the metric on which this levy is calculated, in order to estimate the amount of IL generated for affordable housing on the site, the local planning authority would deduct the minimum threshold of £3,000 per square metre, multiply the remaining number by the IL rate of 50%, multiply it again by the 90% “right to require” proportion, multiply that figure by the proposed amount of floor space, and divide the remaining figure by the different values of market homes and affordable homes, which in themselves would require additional valuations.
All of that is to say that the exact proportion of affordable homes that the levy will generate will vary from site to site in any given local planning authority area, even if the authority chooses to set a single rate, rather than multiple rates, as is its right. It will depend on myriad different, and far from simplistic, time-consuming assessments of end value. However, calculating the levels of affordable housing generated by the levy is not the end of the process. The local planning authority will then need to calculate the infrastructure contribution for our site, namely the difference between the total levy amount and the proportion allocated to affordable housing, and the value of the community facility as another piece of on-site infrastructure.
Moreover, every one of these valuations—each critical to arriving at an assessment of the GDV of the development as a whole—will presumably not be set in stone, because the value of the market and affordable homes, the commercial floor space and the community facility on our hypothetical development will change over time, as would any other. That means that the local planning authority will almost certainly have to carry out further valuations at different stages in the development process, with the final liability not being known until years after the application was submitted—and that is setting aside the very real possibility that the new system will, along with problems relating to avoidance, generate frequent disputes over valuations, which could delay and complicate the process further.
Imagine for one moment a senior planning officer or an elected councillor in our imagined local planning authority who is confronting that new system and trying to accurately assess at the planning application stage how much affordable housing will be provided on our hypothetical site, and the amount of infrastructure funding that will be extracted from the developer. I put it to the Committee that doing that would be extremely challenging, if not impossible, for them—let alone for a local resident who has taken a passing interest in the proposed scheme.
As my hon. Friend the Member for York Central said, most local planning authorities simply do not have the expertise and the resource to oversee such a complicated process, and that leaves aside other pertinent questions. What if the final infrastructure levy liability, based as it will be under the Government’s proposals on end-value GDV, turns out to be lower than the value of the on-site affordable housing and infrastructure that has been constructed in the interim? In such circumstances, would the local planning authority have to refund the developer on the basis that an overpayment has been made?
What is more, the difficulty that charging authorities will face in estimating the affordable housing and infrastructure payments generated by the new levy, and by implication they difficulty that they will have in setting rates in the first place, are not the new system’s only weaknesses. The significant uncertainty that will result from the decision to base the levy on a proportion of GDV is likely to cause issues in relation to the price of land and development land sales. It will almost certainly hamper the ability of local planning authorities to properly assess the benefits of proposed development, and whether it will contribute sufficiently to meeting local housing need and infrastructure requirements. Also, the new system will not remove the need for some type of site-specific legal agreement to ensure that the contributions extracted from developers are used to deliver the affordable homes on site, and that all the relevant requirements in terms of tenure type, discount rates and eligibility are ultimately met.
Perhaps most contentiously, the decision to make GDV the metric for the new levy is likely to result in applicants making their IL payments at the end, rather than at the beginning, of the development of a site, because the potential for interim payments or payments on account will be complicated by the fact that the final IL liability will not become clear, due to all the problems inherent in valuing GDV, until near the point of completion. That raises the very real prospect of the new levy creating a system in which the infrastructure required to support development will not be in place when it is needed.
One assumes from several passing comments made by previous Ministers that the Government believe that the answer to this obvious problem is to allow local authorities to borrow against future levy receipts to fund the delivery of infrastructure up front. However, the Minister must surely recognise that all that proposition entails is a transfer of risk and cost from the private to the public sector; it does nothing to address the uncertainty at the heart of the new process. Even with the opportunity to borrow against future levy receipts, it would remain the case that net receipts from post-completion valuation would be hard to predict, and rates on borrowing would reflect that uncertainty, resulting in infrastructure being more expensive to deliver. The idea that local authorities will collectively take up this borrowing option at the scale needed to offset the delay in securing levy contributions is, frankly, for the birds.
It may be that the Government believe that infrastructure on any given site will be paid for by levy contributions extracted from already completed developments, but if that is the case, it will give rise to a situation where there is no guarantee that the infrastructure funding delivered by a new development will be spent in the vicinity of the development. Whatever way one looks at it, the outcome is likely to be fewer overall approvals, more unsustainable development where development does occur, and greater local opposition; either development will not be accompanied by the up-front provision of core infrastructure, or there will be no obvious link between an individual development site and infrastructure provision in the area.
In sum, and with the obvious proviso that the detailed design of IL will be delivered through regulations and so we can only judge the new system based on our current understanding of the Government’s thinking, there is very good reason to suspect that the levy will not be a simpler, more transparent, more certain and more effective system of developer contributions than the one that presently exists. As a result, we feel strongly that the Government should think again about legislating to make its adoption mandatory.
Matthew Pennycook
How to respond to that? That was a valiant attempt to make the best case possible for what is ultimately a flawed proposition.
The Minister has outlined that the existing system has flaws. I agree with him, as I said earlier, although I do not think they are the flaws that he set out. Some of the issues around viability—I spoke to the reasons earlier—have been addressed, and the Government can take other steps, not least under clause 110, to strengthen the existing system. However, we are considering the framework for a system that, as far as I can tell from looking back at CIL and previous attempts, has never been tried. We are talking about a single, fixed-rate levy mechanism for securing all affordable housing and infrastructure. That has never been tried, and certainly not on the basis of a metric as problematic as GDV.
The Minister says that we know the sale value at the endpoint of a development, but we do not necessarily—it depends on what the development is, and with phased development it becomes even more complicated—and knowing that does not address the inherent uncertainty that GDV creates at the point of the planning application being determined. With the current system, there is no sense of how much affordable housing or infrastructure we are going to get, and we certainly have no guarantees that we are going to get that infrastructure up front, which is a live point of concern across the Committee and across the House.
It is okay to say that perhaps local authorities will have greater certainty, by means of the borrowing power that the Bill will provide for, but what will they do—store up infrastructure levy reserves for a couple of years before they start to bring forward infrastructure developments on sites? Even if they can do that, this system will break the link between individual sites and IL contributions, so in all our constituencies we will get greater local opposition to plans because, even more so than with the current system, our residents will not be able to understand the link between a planning application being brought forward and what public gain they and their community will get out of it.
I do not think that the Minister, as much as he attempted to, has responded to the serious concerns that I have set out about GDV and the new system to the extent that we can be reassured that, in passing this framework this morning, we will be introducing a system that will have better outcomes and that addresses the real complexities in the current system.
Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Nineteeth sitting) Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateDepartment: Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities
Matthew Pennycook
Main Page: Matthew Pennycook (Labour - Greenwich and Woolwich)Department Debates - View all Matthew Pennycook's debates with the Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities
Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Nineteeth sitting)
Matthew Pennycook ExcerptsTuesday 6th September 2022
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 6 September 2022 - (6 Sep 2022)
The Chair
We met this morning, and we come now to the afternoon session. Obviously, some of you have extrasensory perception and have anticipated the fact that I was going to let you take your jackets off—good on you.
Clause 113 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 11
Infrastructure Levy
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 148, in schedule 11, page 282, line 29, leave out
“and in achieving any purpose specified under section 204N(5)”.
This amendment and Amendment 149 would prevent the Secretary of State directing the proceeds of the infrastructure levy towards purposes other than supporting the development of an area by funding the provision, improvement, replacement, operation or maintenance of infrastructure.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 149, in schedule 11, page 294, line 35, after “purposes” insert
“which support the development of the area and”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 148.
Matthew Pennycook
As ever, it is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Mark. Having debated this morning in broad terms the deficiencies of the proposed infrastructure levy as we see them, and the corresponding case for discretion in terms of its adoption and core elements of its design, I turn now to a far more specific concern.
Part 1 of schedule 11 makes changes to the Planning Act 2008 by inserting new part 10A, providing for the introduction of the new levy. The new power replicates section 205 in part 11 of the 2008 Act, albeit with an important change that makes clear that the purpose of the levy now includes anything specified by the Secretary of State under subsection (5) of proposed new section 204N, in schedule 11 on page 294. The proposed new subsection makes clear that regulations may allow for circumstances in which a specified amount of the infrastructure levy is applied to purposes other than funding the provision, improvement, replacement, operation or maintenance of infrastructure, defined so as to include transport, schools, medical facilities, open spaces, flood defences, affordable housing and a number of other items.
That gives rise to two obvious questions. First, what purposes other than the provision, improvement, replacement, operation or maintenance of infrastructure, defined as broadly as it is in proposed new section 204N(3), on page 294, would IL ever need to be spent on? Perhaps the Minister can give us an example of what kind of non-infrastructure the Government believe those powers should fund. Secondly, why should developer contributions secured in relation to a particular area be used to support the provision of non-infrastructure items that may be unconnected to it? Our concern is that allowing the purpose of IL to include anything specified by the Secretary of State may give rise to a situation—as, I might add, the 2020 White Paper explicitly suggested—in which proceeds from the infrastructure levy are used to fund things such as service provision or the reduction of council tax.
There may be a far less problematic reason for the inclusion of the relevant language in proposed new section 204A(2) specifying that IL can be used to achieve any purpose under proposed new section 204N(5). For example, it may simply be the means of facilitating the continuation of the neighbourhood share under the new system. However, if that is the case, why not make that clear in the Bill? Given how widely drawn the language in proposed new section 204N(5) is, we remain concerned that it could lead to much-needed IL funds being directed to purposes other than supporting the development of an area by funding its infrastructure. That is the concern that amendments 148 and 149 are designed to address, by deleting the relevant language from proposed new section 204A(2) on page 282.
In our previous debate, I outlined in detail our concern that the levy as proposed will fail to secure as much—let alone more—public gain from developers than the present system. Allowing specified amounts of IL to be used to fund non-infrastructure items that might be unconnected to a given area would exacerbate that problem by further depleting the funding available for infrastructure, including affordable housing, in that area. The amendments would simply ensure that any funds generated by the levy would have to be spent on infrastructure that supports the development of the area in question. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
The Minister for Housing (Mr Marcus Jones)
It is a pleasure to serve again under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. The Bill seeks to give local communities control over what is built, where it is built and what it looks like. It creates an incentive for communities to benefit from development. The delivery of infrastructure is a key pillar in our approach, and the levy is our key tool to support that.
We think that the local authority is best placed to decide which infrastructure projects it should spend the proceeds of the levy on. The Bill will require local authorities to prepare infrastructure delivery strategies. These will set out a strategy for delivering local infrastructure through spending levy proceeds. There is scope to allow even more flexibility on spending, to further incentivise communities to benefit from development. The Bill enables the funding purposes of the infrastructure levy to be extended to such purposes as may be specified by the Secretary of State under proposed new section 204N(5) if certain circumstances apply.
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.
Matthew Pennycook
I think that was a useful answer from the Minister, for the following reasons. He clearly stated that the reason for the flexibility is to allow local planning authorities to spend levy receipts on non-infrastructure items not covered in proposed new section 204N(3). That is very useful, because he has responded to our concern by saying on the record that the infrastructure levy could be spent on things such as the funding of services.
The Minister made an important qualification, which I will address. He made clear that local authorities would be allowed to spend only once they had met their affordable housing targets and infrastructure needs. I applaud his optimism that the levy will cover not only all affordable housing provision and core infrastructure, but other things such as services. I welcome that clarification.
The Minister will do two things, I think. When we come to them in due course, I think he will accept our amendments to strengthen the Bill’s requirements on meeting affordable housing supply. However, I still think the Bill needs to be tightened to specify what kind of non-infrastructure the levy could be spent on in the circumstances he outlines. At the moment, it is incredibly broad—it relates to any purposes specified by the Secretary of State—and that remains a point of concern. Although I will not push this amendment to a vote, we may return to this issue. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr Jones
I beg to move amendment 196.
Proposed new section 204A in schedule 11 sets out the overall purpose of the levy, which is to ensure that the costs incurred in supporting the development of an area can be funded wholly or partly by the owners or developers of land in a way that does not make development of an area economically unviable. The overall purpose also applies to the costs incurred in achieving the other specified purposes that are allowed under the levy regime.
Proposed new section 204A currently cross-references to purposes that may be specified under proposed new section 204N(5). That means that the levy regulations may allow levy receipts to be spent on matters other than infrastructure, such as improvements to local services and delivery of local programmes that are valued by local communities. Although the infrastructure levy will primarily be spent on infrastructure and affordable housing, that will give us the scope to allow local authorities more flexibility over how they spend the levy if those priorities have been met.
The amendment will correct an omission and ensure that proposed new section 204A also correctly cross-refers to the powers in proposed new sections 204O and 204P, which will also allow levy receipts to be spent on other specified purposes, such as non-infrastructure matters. Where that is allowed, it must be subject to the overall purpose set out in proposed new section 204A. To ensure that proposed new section 204A correctly interacts with proposed new sections 204O and 204P, we are introducing a minor technical amendment to ensure the cross-reference is properly made. I therefore respectfully ask the Committee to support the amendment.
Matthew Pennycook
I rise to speak briefly to this Government amendment, notwithstanding our debate on the previous group of amendments. There is nothing in the Bill to ensure that local authorities meet a sufficient level of housing need—we will come to that—or of infrastructure need. Even taking into account the Minister’s reassurances on how the levy can be spent, I remain concerned. If anything, Government amendment 196 augments the concerns I have just spoken about. By specifying that the aim of the levy can include any purpose specified under proposed sections 204N(5), 204O(3) and 204P(3) of the Planning Act, the amendment allows proceeds of the levy to be spent not only on non-infrastructure items that might be unconnected to a given area in a way already made clear in the Bill, but on a wider set of, one presumes, non-infrastructure items. In a sense, the amendment’s intention is to widen the scope of the non-infrastructure items to which specified amounts of IL can be directed.
As I have made clear, we strongly believe that funds generated by the levy should be spent on infrastructure that supports the development of the area in question, and we oppose this Government amendment for the same reasons I set out in relation to amendments 148 and 149. I will not press the matter to a vote, but I want to put that on the record. We feel very strongly, as I think local communities will, that the proceeds of an infrastructure levy should be spent on infrastructure in their area. If anything, rather than having surplus amounts to spend on other items specified by the amendment or the Bill, I believe that the levy will not cover all those infrastructure costs.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I am also very concerned. This rings serious alarm bells with me and, I think, many other people, particularly those who work in housing associations and local government. It is hard to build affordable housing—we would have built a lot more of it if that were not the case. Given the price and availability of land, the process of finding a delivery partner, the involvement of contractors and housing associations, and the need to make the money stack up, it is not easy. The problem is that if we create a safety valve that allows infrastructure levy funding to be spent on something other than the infrastructure that underpins new affordable housing developments or the development of affordable housing itself, some people will take the easy option and some of the money garnered for planning gain will not do the community much good at all.
I hope and believe that the Government and this Minister have good intentions, but if we allow the funds gathered by the infrastructure levy to seep out from the pot for developing affordable housing and the infrastructure that underpins it, that is what will happen. We must not allow it to happen.
Mr Jones
Let me respond to the point raised by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale. Clearly, the firm intention of the policy set out in schedule 11 is that the requirement for relevant infrastructure and affordable housing in a particular area is satisfied. However, there may be circumstances where a local authority, while satisfying those criteria, uses this mechanism. As I have said before, we expect to capture more value from developments because we will be capturing the value of the uplift of the finished product, not just the value at the point at which planning permission is achieved. Therefore, the expectation is that there could be greater value and it could enable local areas to do additional things, alongside the relevant and necessary affordable housing and infrastructure. I hope that reassures the hon. Gentleman about the Government’s intention.
Amendment 196 agreed to.
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move amendment 150, in schedule 11, page 282, line 32, at end insert—
“(2A) The intention of IL is to enable local authorities to raise money from developments 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 ensure that development is acceptable in planning terms.”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 151, in schedule 11, page 294, leave out line 21.
This amendment would remove affordable housing from the application of the infrastructure levy to with the intention that it would continue to be funded under current system of s106 TCPA 1990 obligations.
Amendment 152, in schedule 11, page 294, line 31, at end insert
“, other than to add affordable housing”.
This amendment would prevent affordable housing being added to the list of matters included within the meaning of “infrastructure” at a future date by regulations.
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.
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.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the Minister for his response, but I am afraid I am not reassured, for the following reasons. The Minister rightly said, and I accept, that section 106 is an imperfect mechanism for extracting public gain from developers, but, as we have already debated, it is one that can be improved on, and has been in recent years, and can be reformed further.
The question before us, which goes back to the wider debate we had earlier, is: will the levy system replace the current system with one that will extract sufficient public gain to at least allow the same levels of affordable housing? I have listened carefully to the Minister, and he has made repeated commitments that it will extract at least as much as that gain. However, as we will come on to with the next set of amendments, there is nothing in the Bill that guarantees that the levy framework, even if it does extract the same amount of gain, will lead to a situation in which at least as much affordable housing is required. The language—I will come to this in the next debate—in proposed new section 204G is incredibly weak in that regard.
Nothing I have heard this morning reassures me that we are not implementing a system that will fail to extract the same amount of public gain when it comes to infrastructure and affordable housing as the present system. There is nothing in the Bill to ensure that local authorities spend their levy proceeds on the levels of affordable housing required to meet the housing need in their area. Given all the risk and uncertainty of replacing the existing system with the proposed one, I feel strongly that the Government are making a fundamental mistake by including affordable housing within the scope of the levy. I will therefore press amendment 150 to a Division.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move amendment 153, in schedule 11, page 283, leave out lines 22 and 23.
This amendment would amend the definition of “affordable housing” to ensure that the infrastructure levy could only be spent on social housing within the meaning of Part 2 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 154, in schedule 11, page 285, line 35, at end insert—
“(9) IL regulations must provide for exemption from liability to pay IL in respect of a development which exclusively contains affordable housing.”
This amendment would provide for an exemption from liability to pay IL in respect of a development which contains 100 per cent affordable housing.
Amendment 155, in schedule 11, page 287, leave out lines 34 to 42 and insert—
“(2) A charging authority, in setting rates or other criteria, must ensure that—
(a) the level of affordable housing which is funded by developers and provided in the authority’s area, and
(b) the level of the funding provided by the developers,
is maintained at a level which, over a specified period, enables it to meet the level of affordable housing need identified in the local development plan.”
This amendment would require Infrastructure Levy rates to be set at such a level as to meet the level of affordable housing need specified in a local development plan.
Amendment 156, in schedule 11, page 298, line 13, at end insert—
“(aa) set out how the charging authority intends to use IL to meet the level of affordable housing need identified in the local development plan, and”.
This amendment would require a charging authority to detail the way in which it intends to use the infrastructure levy to meet its identified housing need in preparing and publishing an infrastructure delivery strategy for its area.
Matthew Pennycook
Having just sought unsuccessfully to persuade the Minister to reconsider using the infrastructure levy as a means of delivering developer-funded affordable housing, I will set out how we believe the Bill needs revising to ensure that the new levy will supply, in practice, sufficient levels of such housing. I have spoken at length about why we are concerned that the new levy will fall short as a mechanism to deliver affordable housing, and our fear that its introduction will lead to an overall reduction in affordable housing supply—a fear not assuaged by a piece written on 22 August for the ConservativeHome website by the recently departed Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien), in which he explicitly argued that the levy would allow for a rebalancing of
“what developer levies are spent on, towards things local residents want, like GP surgeries, schools, roads, and landscaping, rather than social housing for non-locals”.
Dismissing concerns about the impact of the levy on affordable housing, the Government have promised on multiple occasions, and the Minister has again today, that it will deliver at least as much affordable housing as developer contributions do now. Indeed, the policy paper accompanying the Bill explicitly sets out that commitment. The Minister went further this morning, and said that the infrastructure levy will be so successful that not only will it cover all infrastructure and affordable housing but we will have a surplus that we can spend on lovely things in our local areas. As I mentioned, no evidence has yet been published by the Government to substantiate why they believe that the new levy will be able to fulfil that objective.
We are promised a technical consultation soon, and the Department is by all accounts sitting on a study by academics at the University of Liverpool involving the design and implementation of a prospective levy charging schedule. I put it to the Committee, however, that it is telling that in the two years since the levy was first mooted in the White Paper no analysis or impact assessment has been produced to demonstrate that the new levy has a chance of matching the existing system of developer contributions when it comes to the delivery of affordable housing.
Mr Jones
The hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich is right to refer to the importance of the new levy in supporting the delivery of affordable housing for local communities and in contributing to meeting local need. As we have discussed, the Government are committed to getting at least as much, if not more, on-site affordable housing through the new levy as we do under the current system of developer contributions.
The definition of affordability, as challenged by amendment 153, is a complex and evolving picture that is better understood and monitored at local level. It is therefore appropriate to allow for infrastructure levy regulations to provide for any other description of affordable housing, beyond that defined as social housing in part 2 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008. This will ensure that any new types of affordable housing tenure introduced in the future can be brought into the scope of the levy.
Matthew Pennycook
I am sorry to put the Minister on the spot, but it would be useful if we had an example of the type of housing tenures that the Government believe that that specific line in the Bill is required for, given the already very broad definition of social—affordable—housing in part 2 of the 2008 Act.
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.
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.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the Minister for that comprehensive response. I will take each part of it in turn. I note what he says about the powers provided for in proposed new section 204D(5)(h) to the Planning Act 2008, regarding 100% affordable sites, and I welcome his commitment that the Government do not expect those sites to have the levy applied to them. That should be written in the Bill, but I take that commitment at face value, and I hope to see it fleshed out via the regulations.
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move amendment 157, in schedule 11, page 283, line 28, at end insert—
“(1A) But a charging authority may not charge IL on development in its area comprising—
(a) over 150 residential units, or
(b) over 10,000 sq m of floorspace
and instead Part 11 of the Planning Act 2008 (Community Infrastructure Levy) applies to such developments.”
This amendment would specify a threshold for large sites in relation to which the role of section 106 TCPA 1990 agreements would be retained, meaning that the community infrastructure levy would continue to be used to support such development.
I made clear at the outset of our consideration of part 4 that the levy differs from that set out in the 2020 White Paper in several important respects. One of those is that the Government now propose to retain a distinct role for the current system of section 106 planning obligations, rather than replacing it entirely, as per the White Paper. We are told that narrowly targeted section 106 agreements will still be used for securing infrastructure integral to the operation and physical design of a site. The examples in the policy paper that accompanies the Bill—internal play areas and flood risk mitigations—suggest that the use of such agreements in this way will be a frequent occurrence. More importantly, we are also told that the Government want a role for section 106 agreements in supporting the delivery of larger strategic sites. On such sites, infrastructure can be negotiated and provided in kind; the value of what is agreed must not be less than what would have been paid through the levy. This raises a host of questions, as does every aspect of the Government’s proposal.
Will developers have to pay the difference where the cost of delivering infrastructure on large sites is less than the required IL charge would be? Correspondingly, would charging authorities have to refund developers if it transpired that the cost of delivering infrastructure was higher than the given IL charge? Who defines what is on-site infrastructure, and what can act as credit against the nominal levy charge? Will it be set out in regulations—there is then a risk that it will be too inflexible—or will it be defined by each charging authority? There is then an associated risk of additional complexity. How do we avoid developers providing a range of unnecessary on-site facilities in order to reduce their liability vis-à-vis that levy charge?
Those and other important questions aside, in general terms we very much welcome the proposed retention of section 106 agreements, both for the infrastructure that is integral to the operation and physical design of sites and for larger strategic sites. Indeed, when it comes to the latter, the continued use of section 106 is essential to ensuring that they are developed, given the obvious pitfalls of attempting to do so solely via the levy, with all the inherent flaws that we discussed earlier today.
However, schedule 11 does not define what actually constitutes a larger site for the purposes of the ongoing role of section 106 agreements. Amendment 157 simply seeks to place that definition in the Bill, in proposed new section 204B of the Planning Act 2008, so that there is clarity at the outset of the process of introducing and implementing the levy as to the site size threshold above which IL would not be charged.
The amendment proposes that, for the purposes of permitting an ongoing role for section 106 agreements, a large site should be defined as an area comprising over 150 residential units, or over 10,000 square metres of floorspace. We have chosen those threshold values for a number of reasons, but primarily because schemes of over 150 units or 10,000 square metres of floorspace are typically more complex, take longer to deliver and are often phased, and are more likely to require site-specific mitigation, thus benefiting from the ability of section 106 agreements—this is one of their key strengths—to tailor obligations to the specific circumstances of a site.
On large sites thus defined, which would account by our estimates for around 5% of current approved residential projects nationally, affordable housing provision would be delivered via section 106, as under the present arrangement. To avoid the delay and complexity of securing contributions for core infrastructure on the sites by means of such agreements, amendment 157 makes it clear that the existing provisions of part 11 of the Planning Act 2008 would still apply, thereby enabling contributions relating to the sites to continue to be secured by means of the community infrastructure levy.
We believe that straightforward and uncontroversial amendment would provide certainty as to what does and does not constitute a large site where there will be an ongoing role for section 106 agreements at the outset of what will be, by the Minister’s own admission, a lengthy process of testing, implementing and rolling out the new levy. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Mr Jones
The Government intend that the levy will replace CIL, except for the Mayor of London and in Wales, and largely replace the discretionary negotiated section 106 regime. However, following feedback through consultation and engagement with the industry, we recognise that, in some limited circumstances, a case exists for retaining a role for section 106 planning obligations in the delivery of infrastructure. Such circumstances include large and complex sites where infrastructure requirements are site-specific and require a more negotiated approach to ensure that infrastructure is provided at the right time. It is important to set the right definition for large and complex sites. We need to strike a balance between creating a more consistent levy system, while retaining flexibility for some negotiations on sites with complex infrastructure needs. On sites where section 106 agreements will continue to be used, we still expect developers to deliver at least as much overall value. It is just that some of it will be as in-kind infrastructure contributions rather than as a cash payment.
Setting the threshold in the Bill for when section 106 agreements should be used runs the risk of impacting on the effectiveness of the levy. If it is set too low, lots of development will continue to use section 106 agreements, and developers will continue to strong-arm local authorities over the value of their contributions. If we set it too high, it can impact infrastructure delivery on sites with complex and competing infrastructure needs. That is why we intend to consult on what the threshold should be, to allow us to consider stakeholder feedback and different options. The levy regulation, which will be laid before the Commons for approval, will specify the circumstances in which section 106 agreements will continue to be used. For the reasons I have explained, I request that amendment 157 be withdrawn, to allow us to consult further on when the use of section 106 agreements would continue to be more appropriate.
Matthew Pennycook
I appreciate the Minister’s response and, taking on board what he has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move amendment 158, in schedule 11, page 286, line 38, leave out “IL” and insert—
“that part of the IL not applied to the provision of affordable housing”.
This amendment would mean that charities in England and Wales were not exempt from contributing to the provision of affordable housing on any given development.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 159, in schedule 11, page 287, leave out lines 5 to 14.
This amendment and Amendment 160 would ensure that charitable exemptions were limited to development undertaken by charities in England and Wales.
Amendment 160, in schedule 11, page 287, line 26, leave out from “2011” to end of line 28.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 159.
Matthew Pennycook
Proposed new section 240F of the Planning Act 2008 makes provision about exceptions from, or reductions in, IL for charities. The explanatory notes to the Bill make it clear that the provisions in this proposed new section replicate those that currently exist for the community infrastructure levy in section 210 of the Planning Act 2008. That is indeed the case but, as the Minister will know, charities are not exempt from contributing to infrastructure and, most importantly, affordable housing secured through section 106 agreements.
Because the new levy entails a single fixed-rate mechanism for securing both infrastructure and affordable housing, and because there is nothing on the face of the Bill to specify that charities must contribute to the provision of the latter, the limit of charitable exemptions to infrastructure and affordable housing has been drawn far more widely than that which applies in the case of CIL at present. We believe that is problematic, and could hamper development on sites taken forward by charities or reduce the amount of affordable housing delivered on them. By making it clear that charitable exemptions do not apply to that part of IL related to the provision of affordable housing, amendment 158 seeks to enable development led by institutions established for charitable purposes to proceed, and to enable appropriate levels of affordable housing to be secured on the sites in question.
A separate but related issue is the question of what constitutes a charity for the purposes of proposed new section 204F. Subsection (2)(a) of the proposed new section provides for regulations to exempt from paying IL institutions established for charitable purposes, defined in subsection (4) as not only a registered charity under section 29 of the Charities Act 2011, but any charities within the meaning of section 1 of that Act not required to be registered. We believe that defining charities so widely could result in development not taking place, or being unsustainable when it does, because unregistered charities would also be exempt. Amendments 159 and 160 simply seek to limit charitable exemptions from IL to those charities that are formally registered with the Charity Commission, as per the 2011 Act.
We believe that this sensible and proportionate set of amendments will ensure that charities are appropriately exempted, but that the limit of that exemption is not drawn so widely that it could impede development or reduce the levels of infrastructure and affordable housing coming forward. I hope the Minister will agree and signal that he is content to accept all three.
Tim Farron
Briefly, I think that the points made by the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich are really good. It is important that we do not provide loopholes to allow developers to get out of providing genuinely affordable homes for local communities.
It is also important to remember the role of the National Trust, which does many good things. In my community and across Cumbria, it is effectively an affordable housing provider at times. Sometimes it is an unaffordable housing provider, and sometimes it is an outfit that moves from having affordable homes to having holiday lets, and it behaves in ways that I, and hopefully many people here, would not approve of. It is also potentially a developer, for better or for worse. There is the prospect of a new gateway development near Windermere railway station, which has the potential to provide genuinely affordable homes for local people. There is also the potential for that to not be the case, so it is important that we do not get overly benign and dewy-eyed about the word “charity”. What we really ought to be concerned about is the delivery of genuinely affordable housing for local communities, which is why it is important that this definition is tight and clear, and that we expect those charities that have the good will and support of the nation to earn that in the communities where they are not doing so at present.
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?
Greg Smith
I will not detain the Committee for long. The amendment very much speaks for itself. It enables a charging schedule to require that, where an infrastructure levy is required, it be paid up front, or, where the infrastructure levy requires the developer to build something out themselves, that the infrastructure they are building—the GP surgery, school, road, or whatever it might be—be built first. It is a straightforward amendment. Having heard so many colleagues speak in the House or around the place, the great frustration that I have seen in my constituency, and that I have heard from others, is that, when in particular big housing developments or huge industrial parks are built, the infrastructure comes far too late.
I congratulate the Government, and welcome their presumption that infrastructure should come first. Through the amendment, which for clarity I will not press to a Division today, I urge them, as the Bill progresses to Report stage, to really think about locking their own desire and stated policy for infrastructure to be built first into the Bill. I warned that I will not press the amendment to a Division because, having lived through the glorious summer recess leadership election, we have heard a lot of talk and commitments about planning policy and the things that are in the Bill and which the Committee is talking about. I suspect that on Report it will be a wholly different Bill from the one that we have been debating over the past few months in Committee. The point that I wish to push is that the amendment marries up with what the Government have stated that they want to do, and I appeal to Ministers to find a way of incorporating the spirit of the amendment into the Bill on Report.
Matthew Pennycook
When speaking to the first group of amendments to this part of the Bill, I outlined in great detail why the decision to make GDV the metric for the new levy is likely to result in applicants making their IL payments at the end, rather than the beginning of the development process. As I argued when making the case for charging authorities to have a choice when it comes to adopting the new levy or retaining the present system, if a levy with GDV as its metric is made mandatory, the final IL liability will almost certainly not be known and become due until near the point where a development is completed. Given the problems inherent in attempting to design a levy system that enables interim payments or payments on account, that convinces sufficient local authorities to borrow against future levy receipts with all the risk that entails, or that overcomes the problems that will arise from paying for infrastructure on one site with levy contributions extracted from others, the most likely outcome is a situation where the infrastructure required to support development will not be in place when it is needed, as the hon. Member for Buckingham has just outlined. That is deeply problematic because, as I said earlier, we think it will mean fewer overall approvals, more unsustainable development when it does occur and greater local opposition.
Amendment 161 seeks to address that issue by specifying in proposed new section 204R on levy collection that the payment of IL must take place within a reasonable period of a development or phase of development commencing or in accordance with any instalment policy adopted by the charging authority. In doing so, it simply aims to avoid additional delays to the provision of infrastructure that will be necessary to support development and the resulting pressure that that would place on existing local infrastructure.
Amendment 58 in the name of the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) and others similarly seeks to revise the Bill so that IL payments are made earlier than is currently proposed by the Government. We support the principle, for the reasons I have outlined. However, in enabling charging authorities to require developers to pay either their full IL liability or sufficient amounts of it to enable a development to be built before development commences, that amendment goes much further than currently provided for by either CIL or section 106 agreements, which are typically paid prior to implementation of a development or phases. Because it is not mandatory for planning permissions to be implemented, we are slightly concerned that amendment 58 could lead to a situation where IL contributions are paid and infrastructure provided on development that is not subsequently completed. Mandating the payment of IL before development commences would also impact on developer cash flow and viability, particularly in cases of phased developments, which could have the consequence of reducing IL rates and thus the overall level of affordable housing and infrastructure contributions provided.
Lastly, the problems inherent in a levy based on the metric of GDV—in terms of multiple valuations having to be undertaken at different stages in the development process, with the final liability not being known until years after the application was submitted—would be magnified were a provision to be introduced mandating the payment of IL before any development commences. For those reasons, and with all due respect to the hon. Member for Buckingham—I agree with him on the principle—we believe that amendment 161, which merely requires IL payments to be made within a reasonable period of a development or phase of development commencing, is the more proportionate response to a problem that is clearly recognised across the Committee. I hope the Minister will give serious consideration to accepting our amendment so we can ensure that, if the levy is introduced, it allows for the infrastructure required to support development to be in place when it is needed.
Matthew Pennycook
As we have discussed extensively, given that we would not know the end value until later on in the development and that it would be subject to multiple valuations that might be disputed, how do the Government envisage the operation of a system of payments up front? Will the payments be simply scored off against the projected, expected end value, which will be calculated at a later date? Will the Minister give us a sense of how that sort of arrangement might work in practice?
Mr Jones
As we have discussed a number of times during the debate, the matter to which the hon. Gentleman refers will be set out in regulations. Clearly, that needs to be considered, because we need to ensure that there is a mechanism whereby payments are required to be made earlier in the development. That mechanism will be there and we can make that happen.
In due course, as I have said, we will consult on how the levy might be collected and paid. For example, we intend to explore whether a substantial proportion of the levy should be paid prior to the completion of the development or a phase of it. That plays into what the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich mentioned. It would give charging authorities confidence that they will secure funds before the development is sold on. I hope that my reassurances that the Bill already provides powers to achieve the objectives laid out in the amendments in this group will mean that at this point my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham is able to withdraw his amendment and that the hon. Gentleman feels able not to move amendment 161.
Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Twentieth sitting) Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateDepartment: Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities
Matthew Pennycook
Main Page: Matthew Pennycook (Labour - Greenwich and Woolwich)Department Debates - View all Matthew Pennycook's debates with the Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities
Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Twentieth sitting)
Matthew Pennycook ExcerptsThursday 8th September 2022
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 8 September 2022 - (8 Sep 2022)
The Chair
Hon. Gentlemen are welcome to take off their jackets if they wish to do so. I have a few preliminary reminders for the Committee. Please switch electronic devices to silent. No food or drink, except for the water provided, is permitted during sittings of this Committee. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members emailed their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. I welcome the Minister to his place.
Schedule 11
Infrastructure Levy
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 162, in schedule 11, page 288, line 11, after “development” insert “of the area”.
This amendment seeks to ensure consistency with inserted section 204A(2) on page 282 and ensure that consideration of viability relates to the area as a whole.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 163, in schedule 11, page 289, line 33, leave out “or require”.
This amendment and Amendment 164 would prevent the Secretary of State imposing a nil rate, differential rates, reductions, or a minimum threshold below which IL is not charged and ensure that rates are set by the charging authority.
Amendment 164, in schedule 11, page 289, line 36, leave out “or require”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 163.
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.
The Minister of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Paul Scully)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray, and to address the Committee and answer the questions raised. The hon. Gentleman talked about attrition rates, which are important for all of us as constituency MPs, and we all want to make sure that we get this right. I, too, thank the former Minister for Housing, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones), for the work that he has done over the summer.
I begin by acknowledging the work of the Committee so far. The planning reforms will clearly be important in supporting our growth agenda, so I look forward to the next few days. I understand why the hon. Gentleman seeks to introduce the amendments. I will try to clarify some of the points, and to explain why we do not believe that the amendments are necessary. I will start with amendment 162.
Local planning authorities will be responsible for setting infrastructure levy rates, and for charging and collecting the levy, and they can spend the levy revenues on local priorities. When setting rates, they must have regard to the economic viability of the development of the area. I reassure the hon. Gentleman and the Committee that proposed new section 204A(2) of the Planning Act 2008 already ensures that that is the case. It states that the overall purpose of the levy,
“is to ensure that costs incurred in supporting the development of an area and in achieving any purpose specified under section 204N(5) can be funded (wholly or partly) by owners or developers of land in a way that does not make development of the area economically unviable.”
The overall purpose of the levy applies to all levy regulations, including those made under proposed new section 204G(4)(a), to which the hon. Gentleman has proposed additional text. This means that when charging authorities set rates or other criteria, they must have regard to matters specified in levy regulations relating to the economic viability of development. Although I understand his point, I hope that with that explanation, he will agree that amendment 162 is unnecessary.
Amendments 163 and 164 would prevent the Secretary of State from requiring, through regulations, that differential rates of the levy be set. They would also prevent the Secretary of State from specifying in regulations the basis on which a threshold for such rates may be determined. Again, I recognise that the aim of the amendments is to ensure that the rates are set solely by the charging authority, but I reassure the Committee that local rate-setting is indeed essential to the levy design. However, the levy must be charged in a coherent and consistent way, so that it meets its objectives of capturing more value and raising more revenue for local planning authorities, while maintaining the viability of developments across an area.
How the levy is charged should reflect the different amounts of additional value that might be generated across different kinds of development. In some circumstances, it might be necessary to require in the levy regulations that rates be set at higher or lower levels. For example, the additional value created by new floor space might be a lot greater than that created when existing floor space undergoes change of use. Similarly, the additional value generated by a residential development might be a lot higher than the amount generated by some types of commercial development, and it is right that the difference in value is reflected in levy rates.
There might be types of development on which it is simply not appropriate to charge the levy, or on which it would be appropriate to charge a reduced rate. Providing for that in the levy regulations will ensure the coherence of the regime that I talked about.
How much additional value is generated by a development depends in part on how much it cost to build, and on the value of the land before development takes place. The minimum threshold will broadly account for the costs of development in an area by charging the levy on the final gross development value. Above the minimum threshold, the levy is charged only on the additional value of a development. Without a minimum threshold, the levy would not be able to reliably capture more of the value uplift in different development types and land uses, while maintaining viability. The ability for levy regulations to require that thresholds for nil or reduced rates be determined in a specified way, including the ability to adjust them with reference to the cost of development in a charging authority’s area, is key to ensuring that this aspect of the levy function works in a coherent and consistent way.
Matthew Pennycook
I appreciate that comprehensive answer from the Minister, but I am afraid to tell him that I am not reassured. I am not sure—I will happily go back and check the record—that he addressed my specific points. As I said, our concern is that the language in proposed new section 204G(4)(a), when it comes to specifying how viability is handled within the rate-setting process, refers simply to “development”. It is not consistent with the language in proposed new section 204A(2), which specifically refers to “development of an area”.
The Minister spoke in general terms about the local rate-setting process. I take no issue with that. It is absolutely right that the local charging authority looks at viability as part of that process, but the specific concern that we have, as I said, is that it may be forced to assess the viability of every site in the area that it oversees, rather than being able to undertake a general assessment of viability in that area and not have specific sites skew the results. This could potentially have very serious implications for the levy rates that are set and the ability of developers to try to drive down those rates as part of the process. We are not satisfied on that score.
On amendments 163 and 164, we do not take issue with the fact that there needs to be a minimum threshold or the need for specified ways of setting or adjusting the levy rates. Our issue is with the powers that the Bill provides for the Secretary of State to intervene and overturn a locally determined rate that has gone through an examination process. The Minister has not convinced me that there is a good reason for those powers. On that basis, I am keen to make the point that we think this is one of the many weaknesses in the Government’s proposed infrastructure levy, so I am minded to press amendment 162 to a vote.
Paul Scully
Let me just answer a couple of points as the hon. Member considers whether to press the amendment to a vote. I assure him that charging the levies is very much for the local authorities. The intention is to not have a system that is different for every single development, because that becomes incredibly unwieldy—that is the point of introducing this system rather than the existing, technically complex system, where developers, who have deeper pockets than many local authorities, and more expertise, get round section 106 and CIL and so on. If they so choose, local authorities should be able to have different levies in different areas within their remit, but that should not be just from development to development. That is the intention of the measures here.
The powers of the Secretary of State reflect the current system. As I mentioned, the Secretary of State has powers under the existing system and we are reserving that same right, which is to be used only very sparingly.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the Minister for that useful further clarification of the Government’s intention, but in many ways he made my point for me. No one is taking issue with the fact that the Bill specifies that local charging authorities set the rate. That is absolutely right. It is an advantage of the proposed system vis-à-vis that outlined in the 2020 “Planning for the Future” White Paper, which envisaged a nationally set rate or rates. The issue we have—the Minister spoke directly to this point—is the inequality of arms between developers and local planning authorities. Our concern is that the language in the Bill will allow developers, not in the way they do with the current section 106 system but under the new system, to use their extra resources, skills and expertise to drive down levy rates at the point at which they are set, due to the way that viability is dealt with in proposed new section 204G(4)(a). I am not satisfied by the Minister’s comments, and I will press amendment 162 to a Division.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray. I join you in welcoming the Minister of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam, to his place on the Front Bench. It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for York Central; I recognise the point she made about green lungs in urban environments, and about parkland and green spaces being in towns and cities up and down the land.
Listening to her comments, I remembered my own time in local government some moons ago, in the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. We gave planning permission to one of Europe’s largest regeneration projects on brownfield land, crossing the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, around Earl’s Court and West Kensington. That development had multiple parks and lots of green space locked into its design, and into the planning permissions that were granted. It was, in fact, the incoming Labour council in 2014 that undid all of that and turned it over. While I have not been there in some time, I think I am right in saying that Earl’s Court still sits in rubble, as opposed to housing and beautiful green parks.
I will speak principally to amendment 59, which is tabled in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers), to which I too have put my name. It goes to the nub of the concerns that many Members across the House have about planning reform and the way we should go forward. There is a debate about where we should build; should we build on brownfield, or should we build on green space—green belt, greenfield, agricultural land and so on? When I look at my constituency, covering 335 square miles of north Buckinghamshire, 90% of that land is agricultural land. We have seen substantial development over the last 20 or 30 years. Some villages that started off small are now almost unrecognisable because of the vast housing estates that have been built, and which continue to be built on greenfield land around them. I think of villages such as Haddenham—close to my home village, for total transparency—where, yet again, another huge acreage of agricultural land is being built on for homes right now. Buckinghamshire Council, a good Conservative-run council, has a clear vision to build the housing the county needs through the light densification of some of the towns in Buckinghamshire.
However, what amendment 59 principally talks to is the need to incentivise developers to consider brownfield sites when they look at where to build the homes needed in Buckinghamshire and the rest of the country, and that they are not disincentivised because it is so much easier for them to build on greenfield, where they do not have the decontamination costs and all the other expensive costs of developing out brownfield sites. We can use the infrastructure levy to do that. If there is a sliding scale that says to developers that we can create that incentive through the taxation system and the infrastructure levy and potentially make these things cost-neutral, we can take the challenges of decontamination and other costs associated with brownfield land out of the equation for them. In that way, they will pay less infrastructure levy for building out on brownfield sites than they would for destroying the great British countryside.
It is not a perfect solution by any stretch of the imagination, because we still need the money for the roads, the GP surgeries, the schools and everything else the infrastructure levy is there to provide. However, unless we can create a system that really does come good on the Government’s welcome and solid commitment to building on brownfield first, I fear—and I had another developer in my inbox yesterday wanting to build out on a partially greenfield site in Waddesdon in my constituency—that all we will see is planning applications come in for greenfield development, and the brownfield first policy will not be realised.
I therefore urge the Minster to consider how we can use the infrastructure levy, in the spirit of amendment 59, to ensure that there are not financial penalties on developers for developing on brownfield land, so that we make that brownfield first policy come true. In that way, we can give local authorities that have lost a considerable chunk of greenfield and agricultural land in recent years—food security is important to all of us, and it is a pretty simple proposition that the more agriculture land we lose, the less food we can grow—the tools and powers as planning authorities to say that certain proposals are not what they need right now. In some areas, the proposals might be fine and might be what they want but, to use Buckinghamshire as an example, we could put in the differential rate enabled by this amendment to protect our greenfield and agricultural land and to drive development of the homes, commercial units and businesses we need on to the brownfield sites that exist predominantly in towns, and in some villages, in Buckinghamshire.
I urge the Government to look at the spirit of the amendment and to incorporate it into what will undoubtedly, after the leadership election, be quite a different Bill by the time it emerges on Report, to see whether we can make these proposals a reality.
Matthew Pennycook
First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for York Central on amendment 168. She rightly speaks about the importance of green space in urban areas and about how we can increase the rate of it, if anything, when it comes to individual planning applications.
I will speak primarily to amendment 59, because I think it is worth putting the following on the record. I understand the point that the hon. Member for Buckingham is making, but my reading of the Bill is that the framework established in part 4 already allows charging authorities to set different IL rates according to existing and proposed uses, and those could include different rates for greenfield and brownfield sites. So the means to resolve the issue he is driving are already in the Bill, and Buckinghamshire Council will be able to set different rates on brownfield and greenfield sites if the Bill is given Royal Assent.
Our concern is that, by seeking to make mandatory a sliding scale of charges relating to land type or existing typologies by site, amendment 59 could result in reduced infrastructure contributions and lower levels of affordable housing in areas where development mainly or exclusively takes place on brownfield land, because it would prevent charging authorities from setting rates that are effective and suitable for their area and that consider local circumstances. For example, a mandatory sliding scale of charges, as proposed in the amendment, could result in the expectation that a charging authority whose development sites are entirely or mainly on brownfield land would set low IL rates to incentivise development in that area and disincentivise development in other areas with fewer brownfield sites.
Furthermore, brownfield development in higher-value areas will almost certainly generate sufficient values to support higher levels of contributions than would be possible on greenfield sites. As such, a mandatory sliding scale of charges would mean the loss of developer contributions that could viably have been delivered on brownfield sites, with no assurance that this would be offset by a higher level of contributions on greenfield land. Labour firmly believes in the principle of brownfield first, as do the Government, and that is absolutely right. However, we feel strongly that the setting of different IL rates for different land types should ultimately be determined by individual charging authorities taking account of local circumstances, rather than by the method proposed in amendment 59.
Paul Scully
The Government are already providing strong encouragement for the take-up of brownfield sites—we are all agreed on that—and are prioritising suitable brownfield land for development wherever possible. There is significant investment through the £550 million brownfield housing fund and the £75 million brownfield land release fund to unlock brownfield land across different communities across the country. Our national planning policy framework makes it clear that local authorities should give substantial weight to the value of using suitable brownfield land in settlements for homes and other identified planning need.
We recognise the importance of delivery on brownfield sites, as has been raised by the hon. Member for York Central and my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham. However, we believe that that is better achieved through planning policy rather than through a fixed algorithm that automatically increases levy charges on the basis of the proportion of greenfield to brownfield. This further amendment would add a new element to the levy formula, which would still allow for greater greenfield development in certain circumstances, but would remain a formulaic approach rather than a policy-driven one.
The proportion of greenfield development within the local authority should continue to be policy driven at that local level, as we have heard. I agree with the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich that it should be the local authority—the charging authority—driving that, based on their local circumstances. In any case, proposed new section 204G(5) and (8) in schedule 11 already contains powers for the levy regulations to permit or require local planning authorities to set different levy rates for different kinds of development, and proposed new section 204G(4) makes it clear that the local authority must have regard to the increases in land value that result from planning permission. That provides a framework where, if increases in land values are higher, as we have heard is often the case with greenfield development, higher rates can be set. On that, we agree in terms of policy.
In answer to the hon. Member for York Central, I totally understand her drive when she talks about buildings going up to five storeys, and it is important that it is the local area that determines exactly these things. Whether it is the view of the Minister or the affordability of properties, that should not be determined centrally with an artificial algorithm. It very much needs to be locally driven, so that local families and communities benefit from housing themselves and from the economic value of bringing in new people and new investment. It is about getting that balance right, and that will change for different areas. It was interesting to hear the hon. Member’s tour de force—that tour of York, and I suspect I will get a bit more about green spaces later this morning.
Paul Scully
A lot more, the hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position.
Clearly, we do need those green lungs, as my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham said. Those of us who have an urban, suburban or semi-urban area need to get that balance right, and I would much rather that that was done through a policy framework than by an algorithm, which can be game-played by developers. It is important to get this right at a local level, so it is important to get for local authorities to get the local plan in, so that they can shape their place. They have the determination to do so. For those reasons, amendments 168 and 59 are not necessary.
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.
Paul Scully
Proposed new section 204Y(1)(b) enables the Government to require an authority to review—not necessarily alter—its levy charging schedule if a significant amount of time has passed since its last issuing, review, revision or replacement. Proposed new section 204Y(1)(c) enables the Government to require a review in any other circumstances as may be specified through regulations. It is important to have a power to direct a review to be undertaken after a significant period has elapsed since the schedule was put in place or revised. That is because there may be occasions when a schedule has been in place for many years without a proper review, and so is not up to date.
The levy will be a mandatory charge, and for many local authorities operating a levy on new developments it will be a novel means to capture land value. Monitoring and reviewing charging schedules will therefore be important, especially for authorities that are unaccustomed to charging a levy. That is why we want levy charging rates to be reviewed on a timely basis. We will issue guidance on what that might reasonably mean in terms of time and circumstances. I hope that provides reassurance, including for communities and developers, that the rates remain appropriate. We want to make sure the approach is balanced.
Historically, local planning authorities have not always reviewed and updated key documents, such as local plans, in a timely fashion, which is why it is appropriate to take this power to direct a charging authority to issue, review, revise or replace. Furthermore, it is entirely consistent for the Bill to secure timely reviews of charging schedules and to require that local authorities introduce a charging schedule in the first place. Levy charging schedules are underpinned by evidence on local economic circumstances and viability. Reviews either provide confidence that the charging schedule remains appropriate or starts a process of revision if they are considered not to be.
We also consider it important to have the power to regulate for any other circumstances in which the Government may want to direct that a review be undertaken, such as if a new local plan is issued soon after the publication of a charging schedule. Any further circumstances identified will be introduced through affirmative regulations, and so will be laid before this House and debated and approved here. With that clarification, I hope the hon. Gentleman will agree to withdraw the amendment.
Matthew Pennycook
I appreciate that response from the Minister. I am partly reassured, and I note the point that he made about the use of “review” as opposed to directly “revise” in terms of the power available to the Secretary of State. I also note what the Minister said about the forthcoming guidance. I remain slightly concerned about how broadly defined line 2 of page 307 is, in that it does allow the Secretary of State to call for that review on the basis of anything that might come forward in future regulation, subject only to the affirmative procedure. We all know the limitations of that.
I am not going to press the amendment to a Division, but I hope the Government will reflect on the Opposition’s concerns about the ability in the Bill, as presently drafted, for the Secretary of State to intervene in a number of ways that should be the preserve of local charging authorities. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move amendment 166, in schedule 11, page 308, leave out line 25.
This amendment would prevent IL regulations making unspecified provision about how powers under section 106 of TCPA 1990 (planning obligations) are used.
The Committee will be relieved to hear that this is the last of our amendments on the infrastructure levy. It relates to the interaction of the infrastructure levy with other existing powers. As drafted, proposed new section 204Z1(1) in schedule 11 provides for future IL regulations to make unspecified provisions about how a range of existing powers, including CIL and section 106 planning obligations, are to be used or not used.
Our specific concern relates to the application of those broad powers to the use of section 106 agreements. While we appreciate fully that there are circumstances where the use of section 106 will have to be limited—for example, to avoid double charging a development for the same infrastructure item—we feel strongly, for reasons that I went into in exhaustive detail on Tuesday in relation to that part of the Bill in the round, that section 106 agreements have a crucial role to play in ensuring we secure sufficient levels of affordable housing. We are concerned that proposed new subsection (1) could be used to unduly restrict their use.
By deleting line 25 from page 208, amendment 166 simply seeks to ensure that future IL regulations cannot make unspecified provisions about how section 106 agreements are used once the levy system is operational. I hope the Minster will seriously consider accepting the amendment. If not, I feel that we need, at a minimum, far greater clarity about the precise circumstances in which the Government expect to have to restrict section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
Paul Scully
Proposed new section 204Z1 in schedule 11 enables the Secretary of State to prescribe how certain powers are to be used or not. As we have heard, proposed new subsection (1)(c) enables the Secretary of State to prescribe how section 106 applications may or may not be used alongside the levy. That power has been used previously to make provision under the community infrastructure levy regulations to ensure that section 106 obligations are necessary in planning terms, directly related to the development, and fair and reasonably related to the scale and kind of development.
We need to be able to continue to ensure, under the new system, that section 106 obligations are used in ways that are appropriate, necessary and fair. We need to be able to delineate between matters that should be funded by the levy, and contributions to infrastructure or mitigation that should be secured by the more narrowly focused section 106 agreement. That means that developers will know that they will receive consistent treatment across different local authorities.
Removing section 106 from the list of powers will mean that the Secretary of State is unable to provide clear, coherent and consistent boundaries between what the levy should be used for, and what section 106 agreements can and cannot be used for. That would remove a key provision that will provide for coherence across the levy and the planning obligations regime. It is important to remember that the levy will take most of that. It will be more complicated, niche or bespoke schemes for which section 106 will remain. That coherence is why we want to keep that power and consistency. For that reason, I hope the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich will withdraw the amendment.
Matthew Pennycook
That is a welcome additional clarification from the Minister, and I do not want to rehearse the previous debates that we have had. As I set out at length, we believe that the infrastructure levy should be discretionary and that, if it is not discretionary, affordable housing should not be within scope, so we remain concerned about the ability of this power to restrict how section 106 agreements are used. However, I will not press the amendment to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 114
Power to designate Homes and Communities Agency as a charging authority
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
I have a question relating to clause stand part. The Homes and Communities Agency, which operates under the trading name of Homes England, can already be designated as a local planning authority under the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008. The clause amends section 14 of the Act to provide that, if a designation order is made under section 13 to designate the HCA as a local planning authority for all or part of a designated area, the designation order may also make provision for the HCA to be the IL charging authority for all or part of the designated area.
The current situation with CIL is that the Homes and Communities Agency, urban development corporations and enterprise zone authorities can also be collecting authorities for development where they grant permission, but only if the relevant charging authority agrees. It would appear that the new provision in the clause allows Homes England to be a charging authority for the area where it acts as the planning authority, without the need for agreement from the local planning authority, as is currently the case with CIL.
Given the circumstances, I am more than happy for the Minister or his successor to respond to me in writing at a later date, but I would be grateful if he could explain the rationale behind the change of approach, what engagement and consultation Homes England will be required to carry out with other relevant local bodies in the absence of an explicit agreement to exercise the relevant powers, and what processes Homes England will use to decide how IL should be spent in that area.
Paul Scully
I will write to the hon. Gentleman with further details. As he rightly says, the clause is designed purely to act as a framework for having Homes England become a charging authority as well as a local planning authority. That power has not be exercised to date, but if it were, Homes England could become a charging authority. It is important to have the power in order to allow the Homes and Communities Agency to become the charging authority as well as the local planning authority, and to specify the purpose and kinds of development. Without the clause, the levy may not be able to function effectively in areas where the Homes and Communities Agency may be designated as the local planning authority. I commend the clause to the Committee, and I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman with further details, should he require them.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 114 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.—(Gareth Johnson.)
Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Twenty First sitting) Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateDepartment: Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities
Matthew Pennycook
Main Page: Matthew Pennycook (Labour - Greenwich and Woolwich)Department Debates - View all Matthew Pennycook's debates with the Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities
Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Twenty First sitting)
Matthew Pennycook ExcerptsThursday 8th September 2022
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 8 September 2022 - (8 Sep 2022)
The Chair
I have a few preliminary reminders for the Committee that Mr Speaker has asked me to read out. Please switch electronic devices to silent. No food or drink is permitted during sittings, except for the water provided. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members could email their speaking notes to hansardnotes @parliament.uk.
Clause 115 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 116
Power to specify environmental outcomes
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 173, in clause 116, page 133, leave out lines 13 to 20 and insert—
“(a) protection of the natural environment, cultural heritage and the landscape from the effects of human activity;
(b) maintenance, restoration or enhancement of the natural environment, cultural heritage or the landscape;
(c) protection of people and their long-term health, safety and wellbeing from the effects of human activity on the natural environment, cultural heritage and the landscape;
(d) protection of the climate from the effects of human activity;
(e) monitoring, assessing, considering, advising or reporting on anything in paragraphs (a) to (d).”
This amendment would broaden the definition of environmental protection to allow the Secretary of State to specify outcomes relating to climate change obligations and public health objectives.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. Part 5 of the Bill concerns the Government’s proposed new approach to assessing the potential environmental effects of relevant plans and major projects —namely, environmental outcomes reports. The reports are intended to replace the partly European Union-derived systems of strategic environmental assessment, including sustainability appraisals, and environmental impact assessments.
The Government’s rationale for the change in approach—this is gleaned not only from reading the Bill and its accompanying documents, but from the 2020 White Paper—is that the SEA and EIA systems can lead to duplication of effort and overly long reports, which inhibit transparency and add unnecessary delays to the planning process, and that the EOR framework will provide for clearer, simpler and presumably shorter assessments, with designated environmental outcomes that are easier to understand and monitor, and therefore to mitigate, remedy and compensate for, and will ensure that strategic and project scale assessments are properly joined up.
The Government’s critique significantly overstates the weaknesses of the SEA and EIA systems. That is not to suggest that they are perfect; for example, they can rightly be criticised for too often producing assessments that are too complex and cumbersome to be used effectively. However, the Government already have the necessary powers to improve many aspects of the SEA and EIA systems, if they chose to exercise them. Overall, the existing systems have made an enormous difference to how the environmental impact of development is considered. They are well established and understood, and when used correctly, they provide for rigorous, evidence-based, comprehensive assessments of the direct and indirect effects of projects and their mitigation in a way that involves the public.
As things stand, we really have no idea whether the proposed system of environmental outcomes reports provided for by part 5 will ultimately improve the process of assessing the potential environmental effects of relevant plans and major consents, because, as with so much of the Bill, the detail required to understand how EORs will operate in practice is simply not available. For example, we have no idea what range of factors the EORs can consider, or when EORs will be mandated. These and a wide range of other questions will be answered only when the regulations that set outcomes emerge in due course. Given the wide-ranging powers provided for in this part of the Bill, that is a cause of real concern.
When it comes to the basic EOR framework provided for by clauses 116 to 130, we take the view that an outcomes-based system could be an improvement on the present systems, given that they assess on the basis of the significance of effects on all relevant environmental receptors—although, again, it is impossible to arrive at a considered judgment on how much practical difference the EOR system will make when we have no idea how detailed or ambitious those outcomes will ultimately be, or what timeframe they will involve.
However, while we recognise the potential for an outcomes-based approach to establish an improved system of environmental protection, we are extremely concerned that part 5 is likely to lead to an approach that is too limited in scope, is insufficiently aligned with important obligations and requirements in environmental and climate legislation, and—for all the assurances to the contrary—provides an opportunity for environmental regression in the future.
It is essential that we have confidence that the new environmental outcomes report system will maintain the robustness and scope of the strategic environmental assessment and environmental impact assessment frameworks, and will lead to tangible improvements in our natural environment, as well as helping to fight climate change. If we are to build that confidence and provide reassurance that the new system will deliver improved outcomes, the EOR framework provided for in clauses 116 to 130 needs strengthening in a number of important respects. Amendment 173, and others that will be debated later, are designed to achieve that aim.
Clause 116 gives the Secretary of State the power to make regulations that set out specific environmental protection outcomes against which relevant plans and consents will be assessed, and sets out what the Secretary of State must have regard to when making those regulations. Subsection (2) sets out the definition of environmental protection for the purposes of the Bill. The Committee will note that it includes
“protection of the natural environment, cultural heritage and the landscape from the effects of human activity”,
as well as protection of people from the effects of human activity on each of those, and their maintenance, restoration or enhancement.
We take no issue whatsoever with any of the definitions in subsection (2). Indeed, the Government’s decision to explicitly include references to cultural heritage and the landscape in what is meant by “environmental protection” is welcome; but we still believe that the definition is too limited. Specifically, protection of the climate, and protection of people’s long-term health, safety and wellbeing from the effects of human activity, should be explicitly included in the Bill’s definition of environmental protection. Amendment 173 provides for that broader definition, and would enable the Secretary of State, when making regulations under part 5 of the Bill, to specify environmental outcomes relating to both climate change obligations and public health objectives.
In short, the amendment would expand the range of possible environmental outcomes that Ministers could, if they chose, specify by regulation in the future, and therefore expand the range of things that assessments under the EOR regime could encompass. It would allow the Secretary of State to, for example, specify as a desired outcome the long-term flood-proofing of key infrastructure, so that it is climate resilient; or measures to promote walkability and urban cooling, so that development promotes key public health objectives. This is a sensible and proportionate amendment, and I hope that the Minister will consider accepting it.
The Minister of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Paul Scully)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. As we have heard, the amendment seeks to expand the definition of “environmental protection” in clause 116 to include explicit reference to public health and climate change. Before I turn to the detail of the clause and the introduction of the new environmental outcomes reports, I should say that the Government have been clear that the new system is intended to improve the assessment of projects’ environmental impacts, and to place environmental matters—including climate change and public health—at the centre of decision making.
In line with that ambition and the commitment to non-regression, the definitions in clause 116 reflect and build on the definitions in the Environment Act 2021. Many of the terms used in the EU system of strategic environmental assessment and environmental impact assessment duplicate existing processes, or are poorly understood. Our broader approach to defining what outcomes may be covered will allow the Secretary of State greater flexibility to consider all relevant matters, including those that form part of the current assessment regime, such as human health and climate change.
As set out in subsection (2)(b) of the clause, the definition of environmental protection includes the protection of people, which would allow the Secretary of State to consider matters relating to health when setting outcomes. Subsections (2)(a) and (b) refer to protection from the effects of human activity, which would include protection from the impacts of climate change. Further, the definition of environmental protection is covered by the definition of the natural environment in subsection (3). This definition includes natural systems, cycles and processes, to ensure that matters such as climate change are properly built into consideration of outcomes under the new system.
While climate change and human health will undoubtedly be important considerations in setting outcomes, it is not necessary to make more explicit reference to them in primary legislation; doing so would risk limiting the range of outcomes that can be set, and risk our suggesting that climate change and health will be considered above other environmental topics that may, in individual cases, be equally important.
It is right that environmental outcomes reports focus on the full range of environmental issues. Developing the detail of what outcomes will be covered in secondary legislation will allow us to consult stakeholders, so that we can ensure that climate change and public health commitments, as well as other environmental matters, are captured. Outcomes will also draw on the extensive commitments made across Government, including the requirement in subsection (5) for the Secretary of State to have regard to the latest environmental improvement plan when setting outcomes. Setting out details around climate change and public health in secondary legislation will also enable us to minimise the risk of duplication and ensure alignment, as these are important considerations across other policy areas in the planning and consenting systems. In the light of these assurances, I hope that the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich is able to withdraw his amendment.
Matthew Pennycook
I appreciate that response, but I do not think it addresses the concern raised by the amendment. I very much welcome what the Minister said about the Government’s intention to put public health and climate at the centre of decision making. The concern, though, is that although the clause gives a comprehensive list of what “environmental protection” means, it does not explicitly reference public health—human health—or climate, and I cannot for the life of me understand how inserting those things in the Bill explicitly would in any way limit the outcomes that could be set. We would merely be specifying and clarifying that outcomes relating to those two objectives were caught under the powers in the Bill.
I note what the Minister says about forthcoming secondary legislation capturing those objectives, but this issue speaks to our concern that there is a real gap in how the Bill addresses climate and public health. We feel that while opportunities to reinforce the Government’s commitments are woven through the fabric of the Bill, those issues are often neglected or left out.
I will not press the amendment, but we shall come back to the issue of public health and climate, because they need to have a much more central role in this legislation, and to be written into the Bill in many important respects, including in clause 116. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move amendment 174, in clause 116, page 133, line 29, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
“(5) Before making any EOR regulations which contain provision about what the specified environmental outcomes are to be, the Secretary of State must ensure they are in accordance with—
(a) the current environmental improvement plan (within the meaning of Part 1 of the Environment Act 2021),
(b) biodiversity targets including those required under sections 1 and 3 of the Environment Act 2021,
(c) the duty to conserve biodiversity as required under section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006,
(d) local nature recovery strategies as required under section 104 of the Environment Act 2021, and
(e) lowering the net UK carbon account as required under section 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008.”
This amendment would ensure that when using EOR regulations to specify environmental outcomes the Secretary of State would have to ensure they are in accordance with the current environmental improvement plan and additional criteria.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 52—Super-affirmative procedure for major regulations made under Part 5—
“(1) If the Secretary of State proposes to make EOR regulations which fall under section 192(5), the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a document that—
(a) explains the proposal, and
(b) sets it out in the form of draft EOR regulations.
(2) During the period of 60 days beginning with the day on which the document was laid under subsection (1) (‘the 60-day period’), the Secretary of State may not lay before Parliament draft regulations to give effect to the proposal (with or without modifications).
(3) In preparing draft regulations under this Part to give effect to the proposal, the Secretary of State must have regard to any of the following that are made with regard to the draft regulations during the 60-day period—
(a) any representations, and
(b) any recommendations of a committee of either House of Parliament charged with reporting on the draft regulations.
(4) When laying before Parliament draft regulations to give effect to the proposal (with or without modifications), the Secretary of State must also lay a document that explains any changes made to the proposal contained in the document laid before Parliament under subsection (1).
(5) In calculating the 60-day period, no account is to be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which either House is adjourned for more than 4 days.”
This new clause would require major EOR regulations made under Part 5 to be subject to the super-affirmative procedure.
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?
Matthew Pennycook
It absolutely is. The amendment seeks to ensure that the obligations we have made, and the way that they are written into domestic legislation, is accounted for in the framework that part 5 provides for. After all, we are talking about how to assess the environmental impact of development. It stands to reason that requirements and obligations that flow from things such as the Climate Act 2008 should be written into the Bill explicitly. Leaving them out is problematic because it would lead to important EOR regulations being made without there being sufficient regard to significant relevant targets, duties, strategies and obligations, which, we should remember, the Government themselves legislated for.
Amendment 174 seeks to replace subsection (5) of clause 116 with a subsection containing a more comprehensive list of requirements that the Secretary of State should have regard to—it is only “should have regard to”—before making any EOR regulations that make provision about specified environmental outcomes. In addition to the environmental improvement plan, the Secretary of State would have to have regard to: biodiversity targets, including those under sections 1 and 3 of the Environment Act 2021; the duty to conserve biodiversity, as is required under section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006; local nature recovery strategies, as is required under section 104 of the Environment Act 2021; and lowering the net UK carbon account, as is required under section 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008.
Putting that expanded list of requirements in the Bill would strengthen the EOR framework by making it perfectly clear that the Secretary of State has to take into account those important legislative commitments when making EOR regulations.
In addition to expanding the list of requirements that the Secretary of State must have regard to before making any EOR regulations relating to specified environmental outcomes, we also believe there is a compelling case for greater parliamentary oversight of any such regulations that are proposed. The explanatory notes to the Bill make it clear that set outcomes will be subject only to public consultation and the affirmative parliamentary procedure. I will not detain the Committee with a digression on the limitations of the affirmative procedure as a means of effective parliamentary scrutiny—we are all familiar with them, and have discussed them in the context of the Bill previously.
Clause 116 and the other clauses in part 5 provide the Secretary of State with expansive powers allowing them to pass, by regulation, as yet unspecified, and potentially far-reaching, measures affecting the environment and environmental law, so we strongly believe that any such regulations should be subject to the super-affirmative procedure. New clause 52 would provide for use of that procedure for regulations made under part 5. I hope the Minister will give the new clause consideration, along with amendment 174.
Paul Scully
I understand the hon. Member’s concerns, but I hope to explain why the approach that we have taken in the Bill is sufficient. Amendment 174 would require environmental outcomes to be set in accordance with the environmental improvement plan, biodiversity targets, local nature recovery strategies and the Climate Change Act 2008. The environmental improvement plan, the current iteration of which is the 25-year environment plan, is where the Government set out how we aim to leave the environment in a better state than we found it. The Government have made it clear that an outcomes-based approach will be developed to support our environmental ambitions. For the purposes of this legislation, the environmental improvement plan is the most relevant document in informing the setting of outcomes. It is where the breadth of the ambitions are captured, and it is itself informed by a wide range of commitments and matters from other sources.
The Environment Act 2021 created a duty on the Government to prepare annual reports on the implementation of the environmental improvement plan, and to review and, if necessary, reissue the plan every five years. As such, it is a dynamic document that will evolve over time and reflect the most up-to-date position on the Government’s efforts to support the environment.
The environmental improvement plan also sets interim targets in respect of each of the key matters for which the Government have applied legally binding environmental targets, which will be reviewed regularly. That includes the biodiversity target mentioned in the amendment. Other more general duties and local strategies will also be informed by this overarching plan.
The amendment would also introduce a duty to act in accordance with a range of existing legislative provisions, and therefore risks creating potential conflict and unnecessary confusion. It is unclear how, for example, a national outcome could be set in accordance with a local nature recovery strategy, which is by definition spatial and site-specific.
Outcomes will cover a broad range of topics. The intention is not to create an exhaustive list of everything that will be considered when they are being set; rather, it is to recognise that the environmental improvement plan is at the heart of the Government’s agenda. Other duties will of course be reflected in outcomes at the moment they are set, but the duty to have regard to the current environmental improvement plan is the clearest way of ensuring that outcomes reflect the Government’s environmental ambitions.
With that in mind, it is important to note that the environmental improvement plan and commitments such as those under the Climate Change Act 2008 were not conceived as a way of informing outcomes for the EOR. As such, it would not be appropriate to set a hard requirement that EOR outcomes be set in accordance with those commitments.
The purpose of environmental outcome reporting, as is true of the existing system, will be to ensure that the right information is gathered to inform the right decisions, not to prioritise any one particular policy over another. Not everything in the environmental improvement plan will be relevant to development and environmental assessment, and there will be ambiguity as to how the plan should best be translated into outcomes for individual plans and developments. Equally, we will want to set outcomes in respect of landscape and cultural heritage, which are not in the scope of the plan.
When making EOR regulations that specify outcomes, we will have regard to the environmental improvement plan and other relevant considerations. Just as importantly, we will use the process of public consultation to ensure that we are capturing the outcomes that will best support the delivery of our environmental priorities. The amendment therefore risks both confusing and limiting the process by which outcomes are set. Given that explanation, I hope that the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich will be able to withdraw the amendment.
New clause 52 seeks to make the EOR regulations subject to the super-affirmative procedure—something comparatively new to me. We have sought to take a proportionate approach to parliamentary scrutiny and consultation, placing the strongest requirements on the core elements of the new system. Clearly, we want to ensure that we have the best debates, consultations and discussion on such incredibly important issues. The use of powers in this particular part of the Bill, however, is tightly constrained with broad use of the affirmative procedure to ensure that Parliament gets the opportunity to scrutinise regulations properly in detail.
In addition to requiring the affirmative procedure, clause 125 ensures that EOR regulations that cover the most significant aspects of the new regime—for example, those that specify outcomes—will also require public consultation or consultation with stakeholders. That will provide stakeholders and parliamentarians with the opportunity to consider the details of the proposed regulations in advance of their being laid. Regulations requiring public consultation will be followed up by an official Government response on how those views have been taken into account in setting the detailed policy.
Before engaging formally on the detailed regulations, after the Bill achieves Royal Assent we plan to launch a high-level consultation on the core elements of the new system—for example, on the outcomes-based approach to assessment and the use of the mitigation hierarchy in assessing reasonable alternatives. That will be combined with conceptual roundtables and expert policy forums to inform the design of the new regulations and wider implementation.
As such, the super-affirmative procedure would duplicate the consultation and the approval requirements, so we do not deem it necessary. It would only serve to slow down the process of bringing forward necessary reforms that we believe will help to improve the environment in the long run. Given that explanation, I hope that the hon. Member will agree not to press new clause 52.
Matthew Pennycook
I am somewhat reassured by that response from the Minister. However, I take issue with it in a number of respects. I appreciate fully that the 25-year environment plan is the current environmental improvement plan. It may be the most relevant document, but it is limited. I note the point about biodiversity targets, but the document does not contain all the other requirements in the legislation listed in the amendment. The environment plan may be informed by those other requirements, but it does not contain them and does not operate in the same way.
If I am honest, I struggle to understand the issue with the insertion of language relating to legislation the Government have passed, which one would hope has been aligned and made compliant with other bits of legislation that could create potential conflicts during the process of passing it. We remain concerned that the reference in subsection (5) is too limited and we would like to see a wider set of requirements written into the Bill, but I do not intend to press amendment 174 to a vote.
On new clause 52, I welcome the Minister’s comments on the processes that the Government intend to follow when it comes to designing EOR regulations. That measure of public involvement is welcome and will be an important part of the process, but we are still concerned that, overall, the safeguards are insufficient—I will come on to talk about the other safeguards provided in part 5. We do not believe that they tightly constrain the use of the powers; in fact, we think they do the opposite, and there are a number of loopholes that need to be closed.
I cannot for the life of me understand how a public consultation would duplicate the parliamentary oversight that would be afforded to this place by the super-affirmative procedure. I go back to the point I made on a previous amendment. These are broad, expansive powers, which are as yet unspecified. There is a need for greater parliamentary oversight, as well as other stronger safeguards. I am not going to press the new clause to a vote at this point, but we will come back to this and other matters on this part. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
I have said already that we are committed to delivering a modern system of environmental assessment that properly reflects the nation’s environmental priorities. The Bill allows us to introduce a new framework to replace the EU’s systems, while recognising the important role that environmental assessment plays. The previous regime could be overly bureaucratic and disproportionate. Expanding case law has led to a situation where unnecessary elements are being assessed for fear of legal challenges. The costs for big projects run into hundreds of thousands of pounds on occasions; yet, despite the lengthy reports, they often prove ineffective at securing better environmental outcomes or encouraging development to support the country’s most important environmental priorities.
The 25-year environment plan acknowledges that the UK is one of the most nature-depleted countries of Europe. The 2019 “State of Nature” report led by conservation research organisations found that 41% of UK species are declining and one in 10 is threatened with extinction. Given the urgency with which we need to restore the environment to leave it in a better place for future generations, we desperately need a new approach.
The powers in the Bill will extend to all regimes currently covered by the EU system, to ensure the best approach for the interoperability between regimes, particularly for projects that are often in the scope of more than one regime, such as planning and marine. The new approach will be centred around the creation of environmental outcomes reports, which will directly set out how consents and plans should support the delivery of environmental priorities by assessing the extent to which they support the delivery of better environmental outcomes. That moves us away from the uncertainty of assessing likely significant effects to a more tangible framework that provides more clarity on what should be assessed and when.
Assessing consents and plans directly against those outcomes will ensure that reporting is focused on those matters that will make a real difference to environmental protection. In turn, that will support more effective decision making and make reports more accessible to the public.
The outcomes will be fairly high level and user-friendly, simply setting out environmental priorities. It will be the job of indicators underpinning those outcomes to measure the delivery towards the outcomes. Indicators will be created and outlined in guidance for the different types of plans and projects and for different spatial scales. For example, indicators could set out which air pollutants should be measured and against which limits to measure the contribution towards an air-quality outcome seeking to reduce emissions.
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move amendment 175, clause 117, page 134, line 26, at end insert
“relative to the current status of the environment as assessed in a prepared baseline study”.
This amendment would ensure that the preparation of a baseline study which sets the context for assessing the environmental effects of a proposed project remains a core requirement of producing an EOR.
This amendment relates to a technical matter, but still an important one. Clause 117 gives the Secretary of State the power to make regulations requiring the preparation of an environmental outcomes report for relevant plans and relevant consents, the criteria for which will be set out in due course in regulation. It is this provision that establishes the outcomes-based approach to assessment, which the Minister has just described, wherein anticipated environmental effects are to be measured against the specified environmental outcomes, which clause 116 provides the power for the Secretary of State to specify.
Clause 117 ensures that where an EOR is required, it must be taken into account when considering whether to grant planning consent and the terms on which it is given, or to bring a plan into effect. The core requirements of what an EOR should contain are set out in subsection (4). It specifies that an EOR
“means a written report which assesses—
(a) the extent to which the proposed relevant consent or proposed relevant plan would, or is likely to, impact on the delivery of specified environmental outcomes”.
Paragraph (b) specifies any steps that may be proposed in terms of mitigation, remediation or compensation, and paragraph (c) discusses any proposals about how paragraphs (a) or (b) should be monitored or secured.
It would therefore appear that, when it comes to EORs, the Government have in mind, essentially, a simplified environmental assessment report—one, as the explanatory notes make clear, based on the mandatory information required in the reporting stages of the environmental impact assessment directive and the strategic environmental assessment directive. However, in setting out the core requirements of what an EOR should contain, subsection (4) contains no reference to the need for an environmental baseline assessment to have been prepared. We believe that oversight needs to be addressed.
A baseline study is an essential part of preparing an EIA because it is necessary to assess the current status of any given environment prior to development taking place. It covers, for example, what habitats exist within the environment and how they are changing, or the type and number of species present, in order to accurately judge the expected impact of development on the outcomes previously specified. Indeed, because baseline studies are an integral part of the existing SEA and EIA systems, we believe their removal could well contravene the non-regression safeguard provided for by clause 120, which we will debate in due course.
When it comes to EORs, it is difficult to conceive of how they will operate in practice without some kind of baseline study taking place, because quantifying the impact of development on any given outcome requires that the precise characteristics of the locality in question are known.
By amending subsection (4)(a) of clause 117, amendment 175 simply seeks to ensure that the preparation of a baseline study, which would set the context for assessing the environmental effects of a proposed plan or consent, remains a core requirement of producing an EOR. I look forward to hearing from the Minister that the Government are content to accept the amendment or, if not, an explanation as to why the Government believe that baseline studies are no longer required when it comes to assessing the environmental impact of any given development.
Paul Scully
As we have discussed, amendment 175 would give an explicit requirement for the impact of a consent or plan to be set up relative to a baseline study on the current environmental state. Subsection (4)(a) of clause 117 explains that an environmental outcomes report must demonstrate how the plan or consent would affect the delivery of specified environmental outcomes. The environmental baseline is a reference point against which the assessment is carried out. It will remain part of the process of demonstrating how a plan or project supports the delivery of environmental outcomes.
While outcomes will reflect national priorities, it is important that they can be translated to the regional or local level, given that that is the level at which the plans and projects, which will require EORs, will normally take place. As such, outcomes will be underpinned by a set of specific indicators, which will measure the contribution of a plan or project towards outcomes. Those indicators will be relevant to the geography of an area and will change over time to reflect the latest scientific understanding. Indicators will outline how a plan or project shows whether they are contributing to outcomes, and will be tailored to the needs and characteristics of different outcomes.
The details of outcomes and indicators will be developed, as I have said, through consultation with relevant stakeholders, and we will work with experts to gain insights on how best to utilise baseline data to inform them and ensure that overall environmental protections are maintained. Following that, clear guidance will be provided setting out how a plan or project should use indicators to demonstrate that they are supporting outcomes.
I do not think that we are that far apart in this, and I hope that the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich will accept my explanation that although the baseline data is clearly important in measuring those outcomes and using those indicators, we do not need the duplicative nature of having it in the Bill. I therefore hope the hon. Member will withdraw his amendment.
Matthew Pennycook
I appreciate that response from the Minister. I think we would still like something to be written into the Bill regarding baseline studies. However, I very much welcome the clarification that he has just provided—that they will “remain part of the process” , and that they will be translated and tailored to the regional and the local level. I think that is very important and, on that basis, I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
The outcomes-based approach to assessment will ensure that the Government’s environmental commitments and priorities are placed right at the centre of the consenting process, in a system that is streamlined, transparent, accessible and clear. As outlined in the previous clause, we would want to make reports user-friendly and concise, enabling communities to understand what forms part of the assessment and how impacts are measured via indicators. We also want to improve the accessibility of reports and the data that underpins them by improving their format and avoiding multiple PDFs of tens of thousands of pages, for example.
In order to introduce the new outcomes-based approach to environmental assessment, the Government need the power to require the production of an environmental outcomes report for relevant proposed contents and plans. In taking that power, the Government are able to ensure that, where a report is required for a relevant consent or plan, the report must be completed before consent is granted or a plan is adopted.
Furthermore, the clause ensures that where an environmental outcomes report is produced, it must be considered by the relevant decision maker, which means that decisions are informed by quality information that fully considers the environmental effect of the plan or consent. It also sets out what the content of the reports should be. They will primarily assess how the proposed consent or plan would impact on specified environmental outcomes, supporting our ambition to move towards an outcomes-based system.
In structuring the clause, we recognised the need to provide powers to support the reform of a wide range of environmental assessment regimes across Government, but we have sought to ensure that core requirements are brought to the fore. For example, reports must consider reasonable alternatives to the proposed consent or plan and assess any steps taken in line with the mitigation hierarchy. This is the first time that explicit consideration of the mitigation hierarchy has been included in environmental legislation. Importantly, that hierarchy recognises that prevention is better than cure. In every consideration, plans and projects should first seek to avoid the impact happening in the first place, before considering mitigation and finally compensation, which should be absolutely the last resort. That sequential approach will finally be enshrined in law.
Having the powers to set out specifics in regulations rather than on the face of the Bill will ensure that the new system is more dynamic, allowing for updates to our approach to be considered and consulted on as our understanding of the environment deepens. It will also allow the differences between regimes to be accommodated. The clause sets out crucial provisions required to implement environmental outcomes reports and ensures that reports have sufficient weight and status in the decision-making process. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 117 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 118
Power to define “relevant consent” and “relevant plan” etc
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
I welcome the detail provided by the Minister, but I will push him a little further on both clauses. Again, in the circumstances, I am more than happy for him to write to me to elaborate on his answers if he feels he needs to.
As the Minister said, clause 118(2) enables the Secretary of State to make regulations setting out those consents that should be considered category 2. Although category 1 consents will always require an EOR, category 2 consents will be required to produce one only where they meet criteria set through regulations made under the provision. I would be grateful if the Minister gave the Committee an idea of the criteria likely to be set through regulations under this provision that will require a category 2 consent, and of the rationale behind those criteria.
Clause 118(4) allows the Secretary of State to make regulations imposing a requirement for a consent in relation to a project. The requirement will be used, as in the current environmental impact assessment agriculture regime, where no other consenting mechanism exists. The Bill simply states that
“EOR regulations may impose a requirement for a consent in relation to project, which is to be a category 1 consent or a category 2 consent”.
Can the Minister explain the rationale for not specifying that the Secretary of State may impose a requirement for a consent in relation to a project only where no other consenting mechanism exists?
Clause 119(1) enables the Secretary of State to make regulations setting out how the delivery of specified environmental outcomes should be assessed or monitored. Can the Minister tell us whether the Government have a general sense of how outcomes will be assessed and monitored under this new framework and, if so, will he share it with the Committee?
Finally, clause 119(3) states that EOR regulations may make provision requiring action to be taken, if an assessment or monitoring under subsection (1) or (2) determines that is appropriate for the purposes of compensating for a specified environmental outcome not being delivered to any extent. Will the Minister explain the thinking behind the penalties and remedies available in the new EOR system when it comes to environmental outcomes not being delivered, and will he tell us whether the Department has undertaken any work to research the impact of introducing an outcomes-based approach on rates of delivery and non-delivery of environmental targets in development projects?
Paul Scully
Let me try to answer some of those points, and I will happily write with extra detail should I fail in my objective. We will clearly be consulting on which developments require an EOR when certain criteria are met, and we will publish those following Royal Assent. In line with our commitment to non-regression, we will ensure that any plan or project requiring assessment under the current regime because of its potential impact on the environment will continue to do so under the new framework. We want to avoid unnecessary screening work, so it is likely that more plans and projects will automatically be subject to a proportionate report, but only in borderline cases. As I said, we will work towards that through a consultation process on the criteria approach.
The regulations will determine the process for considering whether the plans or projects meet the criteria for a full environmental outcomes report, and clearly we will work with stakeholders to inform our approach to the criteria, and the processes for determining whether those criteria have been met. We want to ensure that the development management system continues to determine projects. We want the EOR to reform the process, but we do not want to replace it. The majority of consenting regimes base the consenting decision on a range of different factors. They will need to make a subsequent decision following assessment, but we want to ensure that the Secretary of State effectively has a light touch on this because, having done the consultation with stakeholders, this should be done at a local level as best we can.
The hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich talked about monitoring. The detail of monitoring regimes, including how long monitoring should be carried out for, will be set out in regulations to reflect the different approaches required for each assessment regime. It is not a one-size-fits-all system, because that is unlikely to be optimal, but the intention is that, with a more streamlined pre-consent process, more time and resource can be put into post-consent monitoring, which will likely be of far more value both in terms of securing positive outcomes and gathering useful environmental data to feed back into the system.
One thing that I am not sure I brought out enough in my speech is that the data that the exercise provides, being more data driven rather than the prose that I was talking about, will not only be useful for permissions and monitoring but have a far wider effect on our understanding of the environment in general, because some really interesting data will be brought out that cannot be captured in the analogue system that we have at the moment. I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman’s question about the research to date, so I will write to him on that, and other points that I have not covered.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 118 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 119 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 120
Safeguards: non-regression, international obligations and public engagement
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move amendment 176, in clause 120, page 137, line 21, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
“(1) The Secretary of State may only make EOR regulations if doing so will result in no diminution of environmental protection as provided for by environmental law at the time this Act is passed.”
This amendment would ensure that the new system of environmental assessment would not reduce existing environmental protections in any way rather than merely maintaining overall existing levels of environmental protection.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 177, in clause 120, page 137, line 26, leave out from “Kingdom” to end of line 28.
This amendment would ensure that for the purposes of making EOR regulations international obligations are not limited to those that regulate the process for environmental impact assessment.
Matthew Pennycook
The clause provides for a series of safeguards premised on a commitment to non-regression of environmental protection, suitable opportunity for public engagement and international obligations. While we welcome the inclusion of these safeguards in the EOR framework set out in part 5, we feel strongly that they are insufficiently robust. When it comes to public engagement, we note that subsection (3) of the clause specifies that
“the public will be informed of any proposed relevant consent or proposed relevant plan”,
and should have an opportunity to engage in the process, as per the requirements of the Aarhus convention. We are concerned the force of the provision is undermined by the fact that “adequate public engagement” is defined in subsection (4) as whatever the Secretary of State “considers appropriate”.
When it comes to international obligations, it is welcome that subsection (2) specifies EOR regulations
“may not contain provision that is inconsistent with the implementation of the international obligations of the United Kingdom”,
but we are concerned that in qualifying this constraint by specifying it only applies to those international obligations
“relating to the assessment of the environmental impact of relevant plans and relevant consents”,
the Bill could restrict applicable international obligations to those that simply regulate the process for environmental impact assessment. The Minister may say it is entirely appropriate that they do so, but we feel qualifying the constraint in this way could have the effect of ensuring that international obligations relating to air or water quality standards, for example, need not be considered because they would not form part of the actual “assessment” of environmental impacts. We believe the constraint provided for by subsection (2) should be less ambiguous, so as to close a potential loophole. Amendment 177 would achieve that objective by deleting the relevant qualification to make clear that EOR regulations may not contain provision that is inconsistent with the implementation of any international obligations that apply to the UK.
Finally, we welcome the inclusion of a non-regression clause in the Bill, on the grounds that any additional safeguard that constrains the use of the regulation-making powers in this part of the Bill is beneficial. However, we have three serious concerns about the effect of the non-regression provision set out in clause 120(1). Firstly, its application is entirely at the discretion of the Secretary of State; it is they who have to be satisfied that making the regulations will not result in environmental regression. As such, it is an entirely subjective constraint, and one that is unlikely to ever be challenged in the courts. Secondly, we are extremely concerned about the practical implications of specifying the Government’s non-regression commitment applies only to the
“overall level of environmental protection”.
In failing to make clear that the principle of non-regression, as it relates to the EOR framework, applies to specific aspects of environmental protection, we fear the new system will engender, as the CEO of Wildlife and Countryside Link, Richard Benwell, put it to the Committee in the oral evidence he provided many weeks ago,
“a runaway offsetting mentality where the assurance that things will be better overall can be taken to obscure a lot of harm to the natural environment at the local level.”––[Official Report, Levelling-up and Regeneration Public Bill Committee, 23 June 2022; c. 117, Q146.]
Thirdly, we are also concerned about the definition of “environmental law”, cited in subsection (1) and set out in subsection (4) of the clause. In limiting the non-regression constraint in the Bill to environmental law as defined in the Environment Act 2021, a number of relevant considerations would not be covered—including some of those set out on the face of the Bill in clause 116, such as cultural heritage and landscape—as they fall outside of the definition used in the 2021 Act. Section 46 of the Environment Act 2021 defines environmental law as “any legislative provision” that is “concerned with environmental protection”. A literal interpretation of environmental law, so defined, would cover only UK law. The Minister may argue that is unproblematic, given the commitments relating to “international obligations” set out in subsection (2), but for the reasons I have addressed we are concerned they are defined on the face of the Bill in an overly restrictive manner that will limit how much protection they provide against potential future regression.
We therefore believe that subsection (1) should be replaced with a new subsection specifying that the Secretary of State may make EOR regulations only if doing so will result in no diminution of environmental protection as provided for by environmental law at the time that the Act is passed, as provided for by amendment 176. The amendment would significantly strengthen the non-regression constraint provided for in the clause, so that Ministers cannot determine to make EOR regulations that increase environmental harm in some areas if they judge they are somehow offset in others, but must ensure there is no diminution of environmental protection whatsoever. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to these two important amendments.
Paul Scully
The new system that we have been discussing is all about improving environmental assessment, not weakening environmental protection. Moving to the outcomes-based approach that I have outlined will allow the Government to set ambitious outcomes, building on the Environment Act 2021 and other environmental commitments.
I understand the spirit and reasoning behind amendment 176, which proposes to amend the wording of the non-regression provision in clause 120 so that regulations must “result in no diminution of environmental protection”.
However, in drafting the Bill, we recognised the need to provide assurance that the new system will continue to support the protection of the environment, and the clause was drafted specifically to mirror the provisions of the EU-UK trade and co-operation agreement. That ensures that these reforms live up to our commitment to non-regression with our partners in that area. If we are to meet the complex environmental challenges that we face, we need to take a holistic approach and focus on how well the system delivers for the environment overall. We will concentrate on the aspects of the system that deliver real, positive outcomes for the environment, rather than on bureaucracy.
Where needed, we will seek to streamline the system, for example in areas where there is duplication of other existing processes, thereby allowing resources to be better focused elsewhere. However, along with the commitment to non-regression, we have also included significant duties to consult with the public and relevant stakeholders. We are also giving Parliament the opportunity to scrutinise subsequent regulations through the affirmative procedure, which is entirely appropriate. In the light of those reassurances on our commitment to maintaining environmental protections, I hope that the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich will withdraw amendment 176.
Amendment 177 provides that EOR regulations must not be inconsistent with any international obligations, rather than specifying consistency with international obligations relating to environmental assessment. The inclusion of clause 120(2) demonstrates the Government’s commitment to legislating in a manner that is consistent with our international obligations. The clause seeks to provide explicit assurance of the importance of international obligations in respect of environmental assessments, and those commitments will be at the foundation of the new process of environmental outcomes reports, which builds on the core principles at the heart of the current practice.
Ultimately, the focus of EORs is the assessment of the environmental impact of relevant plans and relevant consents, which is why clause 120 refers to our international obligations relating to the assessment of the environmental impact of relevant plans and relevant consents. That ensures that relevant international obligations, such as those under the Espoo and Aarhus conventions, are properly reflected. To make the provision broader would sacrifice clarity and risk introducing confusion as to which areas of international law are particularly relevant and pertinent in such cases. With that explanation, I hope that the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich will also consider withdrawing amendment 177.
Matthew Pennycook
I welcome the Minister’s clarification. Particularly on amendment 176, it is extremely useful to hear that the wording was chosen specifically to mirror that in the EU-UK trade and co-operation agreement. I do not want to digress into that agreement in any way—no one on the Committee would thank me for doing so—but it is a useful clarification.
I take what the Minister said about amendment 177; I do not intend to press it to a vote. However, we strongly feel that, international obligations aside, when it comes to safeguards the Bill still contains too many loopholes, many of which I mentioned when I was speaking to the amendment. In particular, what concerns us about the non-regression provision in clause 120 is the reference to only
“providing an overall level of environmental protection”.
We are extremely concerned that that might mean that environmental harm could take place at a local level because the Government could say, “Overall, we are satisfied that the level of protection has been maintained.” For that reason, and to make very clear how strongly we feel about the point, I am minded to push amendment 176 to a Division.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Paul Scully
As I have said, we are committed to ensuring that the new system of environmental assessment will provide at least the same level of overall environmental protection as the existing system. The clause enshrines that commitment, building on the landmark Environment Act 2021, and is in line with our commitments in the EU-UK trade and co-operation agreement.
It is a vital commitment, and it will ensure that EORs support the Government’s objective to be the first generation to leave the environment in a better state than we found it. We want to make it clear that, in introducing these reports, we are not trying to lower standards or bypass important environmental protections, and so it is important that we enshrine in legislation this commitment to non-regression.
We have also ensured that the Secretary of State’s powers are tightly constrained when considering whether overall levels of protection have been maintained. We have provided significant commitments to consultation and secondary regulations, which will be laid under the affirmative procedure and will thereby enable parliamentary scrutiny on this issue.
This clause also sets out that regulations made may not be inconsistent with the implementation of the relevant international obligations of the UK. As in other parts of the planning system, public engagement is a crucial feature of environmental assessment, and the clause sets out our commitment to maintaining opportunities for public engagement to take place. This will ensure that the public can be involved in the process of preparing an environmental outcomes report, in line with the requirements of the Aarhus convention, which includes provision on public participation in decision making on environmental matters. The clause provides a strong commitment to non-regression and to maintaining opportunities for public engagement, as we move to that new system, and so I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 120 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 121
Requirements to consult devolved administrations
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move amendment 178, in clause 121, page 138, line 3, leave out “after consulting” and insert “with the consent of”.
This amendment, along with Amendments 179 and 180, would ensure that EOR regulations which contain provision within devolved competence can only be made with the consent of the relevant devolved administration.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 179, in clause 121, page 138, line 16, leave out “after consulting” and insert “with the consent of”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 178.
Amendment 180, in clause 121, page 138, line 34, leave out “after consulting” and insert “with the consent of”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 178.
Matthew Pennycook
Clause 121 specifies that, where EOR regulations contain provisions within devolved competence, the Secretary of State must consult the relevant devolved Ministers. Our concern is that this is an unduly weak requirement that could see EORs imposed in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland without the consent of their respective devolved Administrations. Because the requirement is only to consult with the relevant devolved Ministers about EOR regulations containing provision within devolved competence, we could see EORs imposed without consent. We fear this could lead, advertently or inadvertently, to environmental regression if an EOR specified weaker outcomes than that sought by the relevant devolved Administration.
These three amendments simply seek to ensure that the consent of the relevant devolved Minister is obtained when EOR regulations contain provision within devolved competence to safeguard against that particular scenario. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to them and the concerns they are designed to address.
Matthew Pennycook
I accept those assurances, and on that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
I will be brief, because I think my previous remarks addressed the point about transposition of the EU directive leading to the creation of a range of environmental assessment regimes that have different territorial extents and applications. As I have already explained, discussions are ongoing with the devolved Governments regarding how best to work together to ensure a consistent and coherent approach to environmental assessment across the UK. We are hopeful that we can work closely with devolved Governments to extend the powers in the Bill to place all the nations on an even footing. For those reasons, I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 121 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 122
Exemptions for national defence and civil emergency etc
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
Exactly. This is why you get paid the big bucks, Mr Hollobone. Thank you very much.
Matthew Pennycook
The Minister touched on a number of the issues that I wanted to raise. This is a series of important clauses and therefore I have a couple of questions for him. I hope that I can draw out a little more detail, but as ever, he is more than welcome to write to me if he requires to do so.
Clause 122(1) states:
“The Secretary of State may direct that no environmental outcomes report is required to be prepared in relation to a proposed relevant consent which is solely for the purposes of national defence or preventing or responding to civil emergency.”
Subsection (2) of that clause further states:
“EOR regulations may provide for further circumstances in which the Secretary of State is to be able to direct that no environmental outcomes report is required to be prepared.”
Can the Minister give the Committee some examples of the “further circumstances” in which no environmental outcomes report may be required as per subsection (2), given that civil emergencies and national defence, as he said, are already covered by subsection (1)?
Clause 123 is a new provision that sets out the enforcement provisions that can be made in respect of EORs. The Minister touched on a few, I believe, but I would be grateful if he could provide any further detail as to how enforcement of EORs will operate and how they will operate compared with the current SEA and EIA systems.
Clause 125(2) specifies that the Secretary of State, as the Minister has also said, may consult only
“such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate”
before making certain EOR regulations, or issuing, modifying or withdrawing certain guidance. Can the Minister give us some idea of which persons or bodies the Secretary of State would be likely to approach before making or modifying regulations and guidance? Specifically when it comes to statutory consultees, which he spoke about, is there any rationale for not specifying statutory consultees in the Bill?
Paul Scully
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that contribution. On the formal consultation, I cannot yet give him details as to whom specifically we will speak to, barring the fact that, as I said earlier, we will clearly seek to speak to all the key stakeholders that we work with really closely. Indeed, we have worked with a number of those in the lead-up to the Bill. We want to ensure that we get the expert advice of people not only who can contribute to our knowledge, but who will be using the system, so that we can get the benefit of that on-the-ground experience, because what we do not want to have is unintended consequences.
On enforcement, the Bill amends and strengthens the powers and sanctions available to decision makers. We want to ensure that the new system is effective at delivering on the outcomes, so it will be necessary for the regime to have enforcement mechanisms. The exact details of the new system are in the process of being developed. We will be working with the same stakeholders on the design of the new system, in terms of enforcement as well as exemptions, and we want to ensure that we have a full consultation.
In addition to consultation, there will be parliamentary debate. I hope that reassures the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich that we are prepared to work collaboratively to ensure that this regime—the framework that we are talking about now—works well in practice, and that that coherent approach makes it easier to understand and enforce. Enforcement is no good if we just have a bit of prose that means nothing; we need to make sure we enforce that as well.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 122 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 123 to 126 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 127
Interaction with existing environmental assessment legislation and the
Habitats Regulations
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move amendment 181, in clause 127, page 141, line 32, leave out “in particular” and insert “not”.
This amendment would ensure that any specified environmental outcomes arising from EOR regulations made would augment not substitute those arising from existing environmental assessment legislation and the Habitats Regulations.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 182, in clause 127, page 142, leave out lines 12 and 13.
This amendment would ensure that EOR regulations cannot be used to amend, repeal or revoke existing environmental assessment legislation.
Matthew Pennycook
Clause 127 enables the Secretary of State to make regulations on how the EOR framework provided for by part 5 interacts with existing environmental assessment legislation and the habitats regulations. The explanatory notes accompanying the Bill state:
“This is necessary to ensure that where an Environmental Outcomes Report is prepared, where appropriate, this is capable of meeting the requirements of existing environmental assessment so as to avoid duplication.”
It would be recognised as meeting both.
Our serious concern is that by providing for requirements undertaken in relation to an EOR to satisfy the requirements under the habitats regulations, this clause could allow the Secretary of State to substitute the protections afforded by those regulations with weaker requirements that had undergone only limited parliamentary scrutiny under the affirmative procedure. In our view, this is deeply problematic because the habitats regulations provide for an extremely high level of environmental protection for our most precious and vulnerable habitats and species, indeed for greater protection than the SEA and EIA systems, requiring as they do applications proposing a development that will affect a site to first prove that mitigation is in place to avoid significant harm, or that there is an overriding public interest reason to proceed and compensatory measures are necessary. In revising subsection (2) of the clause, amendment 181 would address that concern by ensuring that any specified environmental outcomes arising from EOR regulations made would augment, not substitute, those arising from existing environmental assessment legislation and the habitats regulations.
An additional concern with this clause comes in the form of subsection (3), on page 142 of the Bill, which provides for EOR regulations under the clause to
“amend, repeal or revoke existing environmental assessment legislation”.
Even with the list of what constitutes “existing environmental assessment legislation” set out on the face of the Bill in clause 130(1), we believe this provision is unnecessarily broad. Amendment 182 therefore seeks to remove clause 127(3) to ensure that EOR regulations cannot be used to amend, repeal or revoke existing environmental assessment legislation.
It is essential, as the Minister himself accepted during debate about an earlier clause, that we recover nature and that we do so quickly, or we risk irreparable damage to the natural world upon which life depends. To that end, proven, effective laws should be maintained and strengthened rather than undermined in any way. For that reason, I hope the Minister will appreciate the concerns we raise and give both of these amendments serious consideration.
Paul Scully
Given the scale of the underpinning legislation, as we transition from the current complex system of environmental assessment to the new framework of EORs, the Government require powers to manage the interaction between the old and new systems.
The interaction provisions in clause 127 are designed to ensure that when an EOR is prepared, it is capable of meeting the requirements of existing environmental assessment legislation where appropriate. That allows the Government to guard against duplication while the various assessment regime owners bring forward regulations to introduce environmental outcomes for their regimes. It also allows existing environmental assessment legislation to meet the requirements of an EOR, which is to avoid duplication and manage co-ordination across the different assessment regimes. We all know that it takes time to consolidate the complex legislation covering a number of Departments and agencies, and we want to make sure there are no gaps in the process.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the Minister for that response. I note and accept what he said about amendment 182, although I will go back and satisfy myself that the concerns raised in that regard are fully addressed.
We continue to have concerns about the issues raised by amendment 181. I heard what the Minister said about the Government’s intention for these provisions to avoid duplications and enable co-ordination, but I remain concerned that, as drafted, they could lead to the powers substituting rather than augmenting the protections provided for by the habitats regulations, in particular. The Minister’s defence was that we are protected in that regard by the safeguards in clause 120, but he has heard our concerns about their robustness. Along with our concerns about clause 120, that is one of the fundamental weaknesses of part 5 that we would like to see addressed. For that reason, I will press amendment 181 to a Division. This will be the final one today.
Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Twenty Second sitting) Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateDepartment: Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities
Matthew Pennycook
Main Page: Matthew Pennycook (Labour - Greenwich and Woolwich)Department Debates - View all Matthew Pennycook's debates with the Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities
Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Twenty Second sitting)
Matthew Pennycook ExcerptsThursday 13th October 2022
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 13 October 2022 - (13 Oct 2022)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Dehenna Davison)
Thank you, Mrs Murray. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, particularly for my first outing as a Minister. I would appreciate your going slightly easy on me on procedural matters—I will do my best.
As we know, the Government are committed to empowering local areas to drive forward growth and renewal without the need to establish a body accountable to central Government. Development corporations are powerful tools that can deliver large-scale development, and they have been successfully used to deliver more than 20 post-war new towns across England, such as Telford and Milton Keynes. They have also been instrumental in regenerating brownfield sites, such as Canary Wharf and the London Olympic site. However, the enabling legislation was designed for a different time and in response to very different circumstances, so there are now multiple types of development corporation, which have varying powers and remits that inhibit their use. Given the scale of the challenge to level up the country, provide the necessary infrastructure and deliver the growth and housing that current and future generations need, we want to ensure that development corporations are accessible right across England.
In October 2019, we consulted on the legislative framework for development corporations to ensure that they have the powers they need to deliver. The results of that consultation showed that there is a gap in the existing models. Outside of mayoral areas, there is no model available for local authorities to regenerate their areas, which is what the clause is intended to address. The clause introduces a new locally led urban development corporation model, which will be overseen by a local authority covering the area, rather than by central Government. It will also allow local authorities, rather than central Government, to put forward proposals to the Secretary of State to designate and create a locally led urban development corporation.
Subsection (4) sets out what authorities will need to do before submitting a proposal to the Secretary of State for designation. That includes what a proposal must contain, who is able to put forward a proposal and who can become an oversight authority. Local authorities will not be able to unilaterally decide to ask the Secretary of State to designate a locally led urban development corporation. Instead, the clause includes a statutory requirement for the proposing authorities to consult local residents, businesses, MPs and other local authorities before making a proposal to the Secretary of State. When the proposal is received by the Secretary of State, they will look carefully at the robustness of the plans, including community involvement and the views expressed, before making a decision. That is why new clause 53 is an unnecessary addition to the consultation requirements and would slow down the designation of development corporation areas.
The purpose of designating an area is to determine the area in which the locally led development corporation will operate and deliver a programme of urban regeneration, and there will be other opportunities for the local community to have their say on the planning proposals for the area through the planning system. Respondents to the consultation noted the considerable amount of up-front resource required to make the case for a locally led development corporation, expressing apprehension about the level of evidence that may be required.
The clause introduces a different test for locally led urban development corporations. Before they are established, the Secretary of State must assess whether it is expedient in the local interest, rather than in the national interest, to designate the development area, which means that local authorities will no longer need to prove that their proposal is in the national interest. A similar provision is introduced for locally led new town development corporations under clause 132. We will provide further guidance to ensure that the evidence required to meet the test is proportionate and provides the certainty that local authorities desire.
We also want to ensure that the proposals are implemented as planned. Subsection (7) requires the Secretary of State to give effect to the proposal, subject to its meeting the statutory test that it is expedient in the local interest. That will include the order providing for the name of the development corporation, the number of board members, who the oversight authority will be, and arrangements for the performance of functions by oversight authorities consisting of more than one local authority. The order must also provide for any other functions that the proposal sets out as planning powers.
Orders designating locally led development corporations will, as for mayoral development corporations, be subject to the negative procedure. That reflects the fact that local democratic scrutiny will have occurred prior to the proposal being permitted to be made. The clause will equalise mayoral and non-mayoral areas with locally led development corporations by standardising the parliamentary process, with democratic oversight at the local level.
We intend to use the powers in the clause as we did the locally led New Towns Act 1981 (Local Authority Oversight) Regulations 2018, which will be subject to the affirmative procedure. That includes setting out which functions will be transferred to the oversight authority. We will consult on regulations in due course to ensure that they are informed by both communities and stakeholders. In the light of that explanation, I ask the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich not to press new clause 53.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to reconvene under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray. I welcome the two new Ministers to their places. I want to speak to new clause 53, not least because I am not entirely convinced by the reassurances just given by the Minister. As she said, and as the policy paper accompanying the Bill sets out, this part of the Bill makes provision for a new type of locally led urban development corporation accountable to local authorities rather than the Secretary of State. It amends the process for establishing locally led new town development corporations and updates the planning powers available to both centrally and locally led development corporations, bringing them into line with the mayoral development corporation model in terms of enabling them to become local planning authorities for the purposes of local plan making, neighbourhood planning and development management.
In the view of the Opposition, part 6 of the Bill is largely uncontroversial, and we are broadly supportive of the measures contained within it. The development corporation model established by the New Towns Act 1946 was a key part of the post-war planning settlement and, as the Minister referenced, it proved remarkably effective in addressing the housing emergency faced in those years. The 32 new towns built under the post-war UK new towns programme today house over 2.5 million people. Funded by 40-year Government loans, they ultimately not only paid the Treasury back, but returned a surplus. The legacy of urban development corporations is more mixed, but their potential for large-scale regeneration is undeniable and their capacity to successfully deliver major projects, such as the London Olympics, is testament to their utility.
In a real sense, development corporations remain an answer to one of the core weaknesses of the planning system, which is that local planning authorities have the power to develop and set a strategy in a local area, but few powers and little capacity to ensure the necessary development to realise it is delivered. On the other hand, development corporations combine strategic planning capability with powerful delivery mechanisms that help ensure that the development objectives they set are realised. They can, for example, commission private sector companies, or establish their own, to deliver homes and infrastructure, and they can compulsory purchase the land they need to deliver a plan and then control consent to bring forward development. For all those reasons and more, we therefore welcome the fact that the Bill includes provision to amend and enhance the development corporation model. However, we need to ensure that the new types of development corporation provided for by part 6 of the Bill realise their potential and have legitimacy in the eyes of the public—the latter being directly related to the former.
When it comes to their likely efficacy as a means of regenerating areas, the decision to provide for locally led development corporations risks proving a double-edged sword. The advantage is, of course, that a local authority, or authorities, seeking to designate an urban development area and create an urban development corporation, as provided for by clause 131, or to oversee the creation of a new town in an area within their administrative boundaries, as provided for by clause 132, can determine their own priorities rather than having them determined for them by the Department. In that sense, the measures provided for in this part are in keeping with the spirit of the original New Towns Act 1946. The disadvantage is that, in practice, there is likely to be little incentive for a local authority, or authorities, to take the financial and political risk of designating a given area and establishing the necessary development corporation to regenerate it. The recent experience of four north Essex authorities, which attempted unsuccessfully to designate and oversee the development of three garden communities, is a stark illustration of the need for central Government to be far more active in supporting locally led initiatives if they are to succeed.
The success of the post-war UK new towns programme lay, in part, in the fact that each development corporation operated within the context of strong national policy and enjoyed the active and direct support of the Government of the day and their Ministers. It is telling that this part of the Bill places no duty on the Secretary of State to support—financially or otherwise—the locally led development corporations it enables to be established. As things stand, we have no sense of what the Government ultimately wish to achieve by means of the provisions in this part, not least how they believe such locally led development corporations will assist in levelling up, given the likelihood that most will come forward in the south and, I would wager, the south-east of the country. Our new clause 53 is not designed to address the potential challenges involved in ensuring that locally led corporations realise their full potential in that sense, as vehicles for regeneration and levelling up, but I hope the Government will carefully consider the points I have made in that respect.
When it comes to community consultation, I am afraid that I am not satisfied that the proposed measures are sufficient. In terms of the perceived legitimacy of these development corporations, it is essential that they provide for an element of public participation in any proposal to designate and establish such a corporation. At present, the process provided for by clause 131 entails no public inquiry before designation and no right for members of the public to be heard prior to a decision being made.
The same is the case for locally led new town development corporations, as provided for by clause 132. That means the Bill will allow land to be designated as an urban development area, and powerful new bodies to be established to oversee development on such land, without any rights for the local communities affected to have their say and at least test the evidence as part of that process. We believe that is an error, and new clause 53 simply seeks to ensure that proposals to designate land as an urban development area and to establish a locally led urban development corporation would be subject to independent examination, at which the public would have a right to be heard. As you will know, Mrs Murray, that is part of our ongoing efforts throughout the passage of the Bill to overhaul it to ensure that there is an ongoing role for the public in the planning process at these stages, with the obvious benefits that that entails for trust and confidence in the planning system. I look forward to any further thoughts the Minister might have having heard my argument.
Dehenna Davison
I thank the shadow Minister for not only expressing his concerns but indicating his broad support for part 6 of the Bill and the enhancements it will make overall to the development corporation model.
The point about trust and confidence in planning and the development corporation system is vital. On the point about consultation, I refer the hon. Member back to the comments I just made: there would be no unilateral ability for local authorities to go straight to the Secretary of State to request that a locally led urban development corporation be set up. There is a statutory requirement for authorities to consult local residents, businesses, MPs and other local authorities before making those representations to the Secretary of State.
On the resources for establishing a development corporation, we recognise that this can be a significant undertaking, but the Government have a range of programmes available to help support local authorities in their growth aspirations. We would encourage local authorities that are interested to approach the Department and see how we can work with them to provide that resource and confidence. On that basis, I once again ask the hon. Member not to press new clause 53, and I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 131 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 132
Development corporations for locally-led new towns
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
I will speak to new clause 54, but I shall be extremely brief. As the Minister will know, the new clause seeks to achieve precisely the same outcome as new clause 53, in relation to locally led urban development corporations, but in relation to the locally led new town development corporations, as provided for by clause 132.
For the record, I reiterate that we are not reassured by the Minister’s comments about public consultation being intrinsic to the proposed measures. If I have understood her correctly in terms of that public consultation, we are talking about the ability for communities to comment after the areas of land in question have been designated and established. I suggest that the process of designating land to be developed in this manner and of establishing a corporation is a matter that local communities will want to have a say on, as is rightly the case, before they get a say on other elements of the process to follow.
We believe it is a mistake to establish a process for creating these corporations in which the public have no input into the designation and no right to be heard at the point that the land in question is delineated and the corporation established. I appreciate that the Minister will give me exactly the same answer she did in response to new clause 53, but I hope that the Government will at least reflect on what it will mean for trust and confidence in the planning system, which we know is extremely low, if local communities are cut out of this stage of the process entirely.
Dehenna Davison
Once again, I completely share the hon. Gentleman’s sentiments around trust in the planning system. It is absolutely paramount to the planning system operating and getting that local buy-in—it is really crucial. That is why it is a statutory requirement for a public consultation to be undertaken before the proposal is submitted to the Secretary of State, on the grounds that I outlined in the previous clause. I hope that that provides at least some reassurance that local residents will absolutely be consulted before these processes move forward.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 132 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 133 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 12 agreed to.
Clauses 134 to 137 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 13 agreed to.
Clause 138
Removal of restrictions on membership of urban development corporations and new town development corporations
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move amendment 183, in clause 138, page 157, line 26, at end insert—
“(4) In the case of a locally-led urban development corporation, the board must include no less than three community members who represent a local qualifying body.
(5) In this section, ‘local qualifying body’ means a parish or town council, or an organisation or body designated as a neighbourhood forum, authorised for the purposes of a neighbourhood development plan or such other bodies that reflect the cultural, social or environmental priorities of the locality to be designated as a locally-led urban development area.”
This amendment would ensure that local communities within the locality to be designated as a locally-led urban development area are represented on the board of a locally-led urban development corporation.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 184, in clause 138, page 157, line 39, at end insert—
“(2ZC) In the case of a locally-led development corporation, the board must include no less than three community members who represent a local qualifying body.
(2ZD) In this section, ‘local qualifying body’ means a parish or town council, or an organisation or body designated as a neighbourhood forum, authorised for the purposes of a neighbourhood development plan or such other bodies that reflect the cultural, social or environmental priorities of the locality to be designed as the site of a proposed new town.”
This amendment would ensure that local communities within the locality to be designated as the site of a proposed new town are represented on the board of a locally-led development corporation.
Matthew Pennycook
In our exchanges on clauses 131 and 132, we debated the public legitimacy of the new locally led development corporations. We believe the same issue arises in relation to clause 138, which concerns the membership of urban development corporations and new town development corporations. The clause amends schedule 26 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 and section 3 of the New Towns Act 1981 to remove the previous board member cap and the need to set out board membership numbers in an order in relation to both types of corporations, bringing them in line with mayoral development corporations and locally led new town development corporations, to which no cap applies. We believe that is a sensible measure, and do not object to it.
However, we believe there is a more fundamental issue with development corporation board membership. As part of a locally led proposal, a local authority or authorities must be identified for designation as the oversight authority for the development corporation in question, but when it comes to a corporation’s appointed board and its deliberations, there are no safeguards in the Bill to ensure that the voices of residents are heard. If new locally led development corporations are to be a success, we believe it is important that they have robust governance arrangements, and that those arrangements enjoy public trust and confidence. In our view, the obvious means of ensuring that is to enable an element of public participation in them.
Amendments 183 and 184 seek to probe the Government on this important issue by providing for the inclusion of at least three community members representing a local qualifying body, as defined in proposed new paragraph 1A(5) to schedule 26 to the Local Government, Planning and Land Act and proposed new subsection (2ZD) of section 3 of the New Towns Act, which appear in the amendments. We believe the inclusion of representative members of a local community on the board of a locally led development corporation would strengthen those corporations’ legitimacy in the eyes of the public and help ensure that the significant planning powers those corporations will exercise enjoy a degree—albeit a limited degree—of local community oversight. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Mrs Murray, it is a genuine pleasure to serve under your guidance today. I offer a huge welcome to the two new Ministers. I am very pleased to see them in their places, and they have made a good start so far.
Just a quick word from me on this: there is a real danger when the Government seek to do good things. With development corporations, the ability to regenerate communities and create economic benefit and equality is certainly an aim and a likely outcome of doing it properly. The danger is that we establish a bunch of quangos that people feel detached from, with the sense that this is something being done to their community rather than them being part of it. That is why I think that the amendments are wise and worth taking on board, from the Government’s perspective.
I can give a little example. Our new Ministers will get used to me talking about national parks a lot, but they are quite a good example of outfits that do a very good job that are run by very good people who are not directly elected. I have the Yorkshire dales and the Lake district in my patch. When we talk about legitimacy and public consent for decisions that are made—sometimes they will not be the most popular decisions; they will be difficult decisions—then, rightly or wrongly, if we do not have people who are directly accountable to, elected from and, indeed, from the communities that are served by those bodies, there will be pushbacks, and it will cause a lack of consent and of unity in the community. However, the lakes and dales are run by brilliant people. None of them is directly elected by the people they serve, yet they make the kind of decisions that, outside national parks, are made by directly elected councillors.
That is a side plea for the Government to consider those issues, but when it comes to development corporations, I think the Government need to go out of their way to ensure that local communities’ voices are not just heard but seen to be heard. Therefore, people in the community should be directly part of those boards.
Dehenna Davison
I thank the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale for their contributions, and hope that I can provide a little bit of reassurance.
We feel that, while incredibly well intentioned, the amendments are unnecessary. The appointment of board membership for locally led new town development corporations is already addressed in the New Towns Act 1981 (Local Authority Oversight) Regulations 2018. Those regulations provide that
“the oversight authority must have regard to the desirability of appointing one or more persons resident in or having special knowledge of the locality in which the new town will be situated.”
That could include members from parish councils or local community groups, or organisations that reflect the cultural, social or environmental priorities of the locality.
We intend to replicate that approach for locally led urban development corporations. We intend to set out further details on the composition of board membership in regulations, which will be subject to parliamentary debate. As we did with the New Towns Act 1981 (Local Authority Oversight) Regulations 2018, the Department will consult on draft regulations to ensure that they are appropriate and permit local communities and businesses to have a say.
In appointing independent members, we expect oversight authorities to ensure that the board has the relevant skills and experience needed. That includes those with an understanding of the local area. In accordance with the principles of local authority appointments, the appointments of the chair, deputy chair and independent board members should be through an open, transparent and publicly advertised procedure, which I hope will provide some reassurance to the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale. I appreciated the examples from his own constituency.
Regarding the suggested minimum of three appointments, it is the Government’s view that it should be up to the oversight authority to determine the appropriate board composition and numbers, based on local circumstances. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich will agree not to press his amendments.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the Minister for that response and am partly reassured by it. As I hope I made clear, we are trying to drive at what I think is a very limited form of public participation on the boards. I accept what the Minister says, both on what is expected by the Government from oversight authorities in putting the boards together, and the further details, although what “a say” means is yet to be defined. We look forward to seeing in the regulations what those further details entail.
I hope the Minister has taken away our very firm view that there must be an appropriate level of community participation on the membership of the boards so that local communities have trust and confidence in what they are doing. However, I do not intend to press the amendment to a Division at this time. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 138 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 139 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 140
Acquisition by local authorities for purposes of regeneration
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dehenna Davison
I will now explain clauses 140 to 144 and schedule 14. The Government want to see local authorities empowered to use compulsory purchase to regenerate their areas, so that places and regions can drive improvements in economic growth and pride in place. The levelling-up White Paper made it clear that we want local communities to be empowered to take the lead, and we want to ensure they have the tools they need to succeed. Key to that is ensuring that local authorities have the right compulsory purchase enabling powers and processes, and the confidence to use them. This is the intent behind the clauses, which focus on modernising and streamlining the compulsory purchase process to make it faster and more effective.
With clause 140, we are making it crystal clear in the Bill that local authorities in England have the power to use compulsory purchase for regeneration purposes and to bridge the gap the urban centre recovery taskforce identified last year, which we are keen to address. Currently, local authorities in England are able to use their compulsory purchase powers for development, redevelopment and improvement purposes.
Clause 140 will ensure that local authorities have the certainty to acquire land compulsorily for regeneration schemes too. That will align them with other public authorities such as Homes England and the Greater London Authority. That could, among other things, improve the social wellbeing of a local authority’s area, while not actually involving the construction or reconstruction of a building. For instance, this regeneration compulsory purchase order power could be used to transform a vacant commercial building into a community hub. Alongside this change, we will bring forward updated guidance to provide more clarity on the use of compulsory purchase for long-term strategic land assembly by local authorities.
On clause 141, we need to ensure that the CPO process is efficient yet accessible and fair for all involved in it. The clause retains the current requirements for the physical deposit of documents and service of notice. It remains the case that sufficient proof of delivery through electronic communications is difficult. Given the nature of compulsory purchase, it is crucial that affected parties receive—and can prove that they have received—the necessary communications. The clause also requires acquiring authorities to make CPO documents and notices available online, and it creates the flexibility for Ministers to direct, in extreme circumstances where the physical deposit of documents is impractical, that online provision is sufficient. Further provisions in clause 148 provide for the application of common standards to compulsory purchase data. As I have described, these amendments begin the modernisation of the CPO process, and I commend clause 141 to the Committee.
Clause 142 will create a faster, more effective confirmation process. At present, a single affected landowner can demand an expensive and lengthy public inquiry for any CPO. This can be used as a delaying tactic, slowing down the decision-making process and increasing the costs for the acquiring authority and others involved. As we know, cost for the authority means cost for the taxpayer. In turn, this can make acquiring authorities, such as local authorities, less inclined to use CPO powers. We believe that the confirmation procedure should reflect the complexity of the order. Many CPOs involve one or a very small number of properties, with little impact outside the boundaries of those properties. Confirmation proceedings for orders like these do not generally need a public inquiry.
We also believe that it is right to give the discretion to the confirming authority to determine the appropriate procedure based on the circumstances, while protecting the right for affected parties to have an oral hearing if they wish. In keeping with those ambitions, clause 142 enables confirming authorities to decide to hold a public local inquiry, or to follow the new representations procedure, which will include an oral hearing if objectors request one. We will engage with stakeholders in shaping the representations procedure to ensure it works practically and produces a faster and more efficient process.
On clause 143, we want to ensure that authorities have the confidence to achieve positive outcomes in making CPOs. Too often when there is a decision to confirm a CPO, the CPO is rejected because of a specific impediment at the point of decision, and that often results in significant delay or even the complete collapse of the scheme. We want authorities to know that where a specific impediment, such as funding uncertainty, remains outstanding at the point of decision, a condition can be imposed for that to be dealt with and discharged at a later point.
Clause 143 achieves that end by introducing the concept of conditional confirmation, which will allow decision makers to confirm CPOs subject to the conditions being met before the compulsory purchase powers may be used. That may assist progress-stalled developments, as conditions could be imposed to force a landowner to follow through on commitments to undertake developments, and if they fail to do that, that will allow a CPO to become operative.
We also want authorities to make their CPOs earlier in the delivery process of a scheme. That will encourage authorities to make their CPOs concurrently with seeking other consents, rather than sequentially after obtaining other consents. Introducing conditional confirmation will support that aim.
To reassure hon. Members, that does not mean that insufficiently prepared CPOs or CPOs without sufficient justification will be conditionally confirmed. The test of there being a compelling case in the public interest to confirm the CPO will absolutely remain. We expect only very specific conditions to be imposed in most cases—one or possibly two to a CPO that otherwise shows a compelling case in the public interest. Guidance will be updated to provide clarity on the imposition of conditions. Initial confirmations will be a significant lever to provide authorities with more confidence in using CPOs and to deliver schemes more quickly.
Clause 144 gives effect to schedule 14, which makes provision in relation to compulsory purchases by Ministers, corresponding to clauses 141 to 143. Given that Ministers may use compulsory purchase in a number of circumstances —for example, to deliver major highway or rail schemes—it is only right that those provisions benefit from improvements to the process. I hope I can get the support of all hon. Members for the clauses.
Matthew Pennycook
The Minister referred to at least two further sets of guidance that are to follow. Can she give the Committee any sense of the timeline for that?
Dehenna Davison
I cannot today, but I will endeavour to write to the hon. Gentleman within the next 48 hours to provide that clarity.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 140 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 141 to 144 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 14 agreed to.
Clause 145
Consequential amendments relating to date of operation
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dehenna Davison
I sincerely hope that we can get agreement for these clauses. New clause 62 goes further to deliver the Government’s priority to ensure that the compulsory purchase system is fit for purpose. It will build on other measures to ensure a fair balance between landowners and acquiring authorities in the public interest when it comes to the payment of compensation.
The Land Compensation Act 1961 contains the principal rules for assessing compensation relating to compulsory purchase. Under the current rules, when assessing the open market value of the land to be acquired, there are statutory assumptions that must be taken into account. They include the discounting effects of the compulsory purchase scheme, known as the no scheme principle, and considering the planning prospects of the land being acquired. The latter gives rise to landowners being able to claim hope value as part of their compensation—an issue that has attracted significant attention in recent years, including from the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee.
One method of assessing the prospect of planning consent is to establish appropriate alternative development, namely development that would have received planning permission if the scheme underpinning the compulsory purchase were cancelled. Where appropriate alternative development is established, it may be assumed for valuation purposes that planning permission is in force on the relevant valuation date. That is known as planning certainty. Assuming the value of the appropriate alternative development is greater than the existing use value creates an uplift in the value of the land.
The 1961 Act allows parties concerned with a compulsory purchase to apply to a local planning authority for a certificate to determine whether there is development that, in its opinion, would constitute appropriate alternative development. Certificates of appropriate alternative development, CAADs, are used as a tool to establish whether there is appropriate alternative development on a site, and thus planning certainty for valuation purposes.
Under the current rules, there is no requirement for a CAAD to be applied to establish planning certainty and secure any resulting uplift in the value of land. In addition, when issuing a certificate, local planning authorities are required to identify all developments that they think are appropriate developments, not just developments that match the description of the development being applied for. That can increase the administrative burden on a local planning authority’s resources and the risk of a legal challenge, which results in further costs to the authority and the taxpayer. Expenses incurred by applicants submitting their CAAD applications must be paid for by acquiring authorities.
My Department has been working closely with stakeholders to develop a package of measures to reform the CAAD process and ensure that the assessment of the prospect of planning permission is aligned with normal market conditions. It is important that a balance is struck between landowners and acquiring authorities. We are therefore seeking to introduce Government new clause 62 to ensure that the compulsory purchase compensation regime does not deliver elevated levels of compensation for prospective planning permissions, which would result in more than fair value being paid. That will be achieved by ensuring that compensation attributed to alternative development is claimable only via the issuing of a CAAD and, further, that value attributable to potential alternative development in the future cannot be claimed. Although the prospect of planning permission will still be claimable, our new clause will bring the assessment of value attributable to prospective planning permission in line with the position in a normal market transaction. It will also ensure that valuations of hope value are not disproportionate.
We are very clear that those affected by compulsory purchase are entitled to a fair value for their land, but we want to ensure that the compulsory purchase compensation regime does not lead to elevated compensation, including costs being paid for prospective planning permission, which would result in more than fair value being paid by local authorities, and thus by the taxpayer. I hope that the whole Committee will support Government new clause 62.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the Minister for that very detailed exposition of the purpose of the new clause. She will be pleased to learn that, in general terms, we are supportive of the provisions in part 7 of the Bill, which concerns compulsory purchase. They are sensible and proportionate measures that will give local authorities clearer, more efficient and more effective powers; greater confidence that they can acquire land by compulsion to support regeneration schemes; and greater certainty that land can be assembled and schemes delivered quickly through compulsory purchase.
We also support the Government new clause, which concerns compensation in relation to hope value. The cost of land is a major barrier—only one of many—to development across the country, and to increasing investment in infrastructure and affordable housing. As the Minister made clear, land values are frequently inflated well above agricultural or industrial values because of hope value—that is, the value attributed to the expectation that land could be awarded planning permission for new housing.
Hope value often makes social housebuilding and the provision of infrastructure unviable for local authorities and developers, and the fact that it is based on the assumption that each plot of land will maximise short-term profitability disincentivises long-term value generation. A landowner with a plot of land that might be ideal for specialist or affordable housing, or other essential uses that the market has no incentive whatsoever to deliver, can under the current regime always choose to refrain from developing it, in the expectation that they will receive a far better price in the future for a standard scheme dominated by market-sale homes at current prices.
The 2020 White Paper, “Planning for the Future”, rightly recognised that less than half of the uplift in land values created by the granting of planning permission is being captured by communities to help to pay for infrastructure and affordable housing. Given the demands on captured value when it comes to infrastructure and affordable housing, we agree with the Government that it is right to seek to reform the system, in order to ensure that assessment of value attributable to the likelihood of alternative development is more akin to what it would be in normal market conditions, and to rebalance the position with regard to costs and compensation between landowner and acquiring authority to make it fairer. To that end, we believe that the Government new clause, which proposes implementing a range of changes to section 14 and other sections of the Land Compensation Act 1961, as set out in the first part of the Government’s compulsory purchase compensation reforms consultation, published in June, is good. We are pleased that the Government felt able to bring it forward.
Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Twenty Third sitting) Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateDepartment: Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities
Matthew Pennycook
Main Page: Matthew Pennycook (Labour - Greenwich and Woolwich)Department Debates - View all Matthew Pennycook's debates with the Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities
Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Twenty Third sitting)
Matthew Pennycook ExcerptsThursday 13th October 2022
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 13 October 2022 - (13 Oct 2022)
Dehenna Davison
Part 9 of the Bill will greatly enhance our understanding of who owns or controls land and property. To assist the economy to grow, the Government need to break down any barriers and find key tools that ensure our property market is fair, open, competitive and resilient. One big barrier at the moment is information asymmetries. The land market in England and Wales currently lacks full transparency, particularly when land control arrangements are used—opaque arrangements short of ownerships such as options and conditional contracts.
The Government are determined, for the benefit of us all, to shine a light on complex arrangements used to control land and property. Clause 178 allows the Secretary of State to expand the collection of information about legal and beneficial ownership of land and property in England and Wales. We intend to use the power to dig deep into opaque ownership, and to control structures into narrow use cases.
First, the power will ensure that landlords responsible for the cost of remediating unsafe buildings under the Building Safety Act 2022 do not avoid their liabilities. Some are seeking to avoid their remediation responsibilities and frustrate the Act through the use of obscure structures. A targeted power will help to cut through that, and will allow us to ensure that works are carried out swiftly, so that we avoid continued costs for leaseholders and calls on the Government’s legal budget. Secondly, the power will allow the intelligence and security agencies to identify opportunities for hostile actors to misuse properties in the vicinity of sensitive sites and put national security at risk.
Clause 179 further expands the Secretary of State’s power to collect information on certain specified types of arrangements used to control land. The powers will allow us, for the first time, to collect information on arrangements used by developers and others to control land. I would like to share some facts and statistics about the extent of land control arrangements, and the impacts that the practice has on the housing market, but I cannot, because Ministers and the public are blindfolded on that point. We have no accurate data on the area of land that is subject to such controls, although we suspect that it is substantial. That means that it is hard for local authorities, communities and businesses to identify who controls developable sites. In many areas, that hampers good place-making and slows down development of new areas for people to live in and thrive in.
Collecting and publishing information about land control arrangements will give communities and local authorities a better understanding of who controls land in their area, and addresses those barriers. It will also provide Government with additional information that will allow them to understand who exercises control over land and property, even where that person is not the legal owner. It will provide the basis for assessing that hidden market and producing evidence-based policy.
To implement these powers effectively, we must retain the flexibility to respond swiftly to attempts to avoid or evade this legislation, and ensure that we have all the information we need to unpick the complex and opaque structures used by some to hide their ownership or control. Clause 180 specifies the key information that must be set out in statutory instruments before the powers under the previous two clauses can be used. Parliament will have the opportunity to debate and approve all regulations made under this part of the Bill before they come into force, and all draft instruments will be laid before the House under the affirmative procedure.
Clause 181 allows for the retention, sharing within Government and publication of information collected under clauses 178 and 179. In her Second Reading speech, the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), expressed concerns that we were seeking to withhold information on arrangements used by developers to control land. I am pleased to reassure her, and members of the Committee, that we will publish such data as machine-readable open data, in line with our commitments, set out in the 2017 housing White Paper, to improve the transparency of those arrangements and—our key motivations behind the measure—to make the land market more transparent and competitive.
Bearing in mind privacy and security considerations, it is the Government’s intention that other types of information collected—but not published—will be shared with and used by Government bodies to carry out their functions; for example, they could be used for the enhancement of national security and the implementation of the Building Safety Act 2022.
Clause 181 allows for the payment of fees to cover the costs of collecting that information. As our proposals are designed to work with the grain of existing processes, we expect that any fees, if charged at all, would be modest. To be clear, regulations creating any such fee must be made under the affirmative procedure, so Parliament would have to approve them first.
Clause 182 allows the creation of criminal offences by regulation, so that penalties could be imposed on those who failed to comply with requirements to provide information, or who provided false or misleading information. In the overwhelming majority of cases, we expect that people will comply, but the steps that we are taking through this legislation to increase transparency about the ownership and control of property will be disruptive to dishonest actors, or those seeking to conceal their ownership or control of land and property. The stringent transparency measures are, in part, designed to deter nefarious activity or the avoidance of other initiatives aimed at increasing transparency. It would be naive to assume that there are not those who will try very hard to avoid their obligations. That is why that power is so important. The final clause in this part, clause 183, is a technical clause that sets out key definitions. I hope that is non-contentious.
In summary, together, these clauses will provide crucial tools to ensure that our property market is fair, transparent, competitive and resilient. I commend them to the Committee.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
Part 9 is one of the less remarked-on parts of the Bill, but it contains important measures. As the Minister outlined, it provides for enabling powers that require the disclosure of information relating to the ownership and control of land in England and Wales, including transactional information.
Labour fully supports the goal of increasing transparency and accountability in respect of the ownership and control of land that could be used for development, as well as transactional information relating to instruments, contracts and other arrangements. We agree with the Government that reform in this area has the potential to help expose anti-competitive behaviour by developers, tackle strategic land banking, aid smaller-sized enterprises to acquire land for development, facilitate more effective land assembly by local authorities and others, and help communities to better understand the likely path of development in their area. As the Minister rightly said, reform will also help to ensure that where buildings are defective in terms of building safety and require remediation, those works are undertaken as swiftly as possible.
Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Twenty Fourth sitting) Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateDepartment: Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities
Matthew Pennycook
Main Page: Matthew Pennycook (Labour - Greenwich and Woolwich)Department Debates - View all Matthew Pennycook's debates with the Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities
Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Twenty Fourth sitting)
Matthew Pennycook ExcerptsTuesday 18th October 2022
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 18 October 2022 - (18 Oct 2022)
Lee Rowley
The clause enables the Secretary of State to commission, from time to time, reviews of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. RICS, as many hon. Members will know, is the leading professional body for surveyors. Its members work across the UK, and RICS plays a vital role in these sectors. The guidance RICS publishes is valued by surveyors, industry and members of the public. The clause will enable reviews into RICS’s governance and its effectiveness in meeting its objectives. The clause does not prescribe the frequency of reviews, but gives the Secretary of State the necessary power and flexibility to further specify the scope and timing of any review that is required.
The Government do not envisage enacting a review of RICS on a regular or specified basis, so long as RICS demonstrates its effectiveness and is reviewing its own performance to the satisfaction of Government and Parliament, but should a review be required the clause sets out that the person the Secretary of State appoints to carry out the review must be independent of both the Secretary of State and RICS. The reviewer must submit a written report setting out the results and any recommendations of the review to the Secretary of State, who will publish a copy of the report. The clause does not include powers for the Secretary of State to act on any such findings or recommendations; they would need the explicit approval of Parliament. That will ensure that the Government have the ability in law to review whether RICS is performing in the public interest, and I commend the clause to the Committee.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone. I thank the Minister for that explanation of the purpose of the clause, but he will be aware that the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors has expressed deep concerns about its precise wording, not least in terms of the precedent that it would set in relation to Government interference in other royal chartered bodies.
The issue is not the need for RICS to undergo periodic reviews of its governance and performance. Following the September 2021 publication of the Levitt report into the events that took place within the institution in 2018 and 2019, and the subsequent independent review undertaken by Lord Bichard, which examined its purpose, governance and strategy, RICS’s governing council accepted that regular independent reviews should take place, with their findings laid before Parliament and the devolved nations. The case for periodic independent reviews is therefore uncontested.
From what the Minister said, I think what remains the point of contention is whether the Secretary of State should be given the power to commission reviews of RICS, the scope and frequency of which are not clearly defined in the Bill, or whether the clause should be revised to reflect the commitments made by the institution in the light of Lord Bichard’s independent review. Given the serious concerns expressed by RICS, I will probe the Minister further on the Government’s rationale for the clause’s wording. Can he set out more clearly why, given that RICS’s governing council has made it clear that it accepts recommendation 14 of Lord Bichard’s review in full and will implement it subject to Privy Council approval, the Government believe that they still need to legislate to ensure that the Secretary of State can initiate reviews of RICS whenever they choose, as well as determine their scope?
Can the Minister also outline how such periodic reviews initiated by the Secretary of State using the powers in the clause would differ, if at all, from the parameters of independent reviews as outlined in paragraph 3.22 of Lord Bichard’s review, and accepted in principle by RICS? Can he reassure the Committee that the Government have given serious consideration to the potential impact of approving this clause unamended on not only RICS’s independence and ability to act in the public interest but the status of royal chartered bodies more widely?
As I say, we have no issue with the clause in principle, and we do not suggest that it should be removed from the Bill entirely; there is clearly a need to act to ensure that RICS is subject to regular independent review. However, we want the Government to properly justify the inclusion of the clause as worded in the Bill, rather than amending it to reflect developments following the publication of Lord Bichard’s review. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Lee Rowley
I am grateful to the hon. Member for his questions, which are entirely reasonable and on which I hope to provide some assurance. First, he asked why the Government are asking for this power, given that the Bichard review has outlined a process to resolve the current situation. The view of the Government and of previous Ministers who instigated this was that a process was likely to be under way, but equally there is value in the Secretary of State having this power, should it ever be necessary in the future, which obviously we hope it would not, and we have indicated that it would be used extremely sparingly. The principle of having the ability to instigate a review is one that the Government believe is reasonable and proportionate.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman asked how the terms of reference would differ from an independent review. That question would have to be asked in individual circumstances, so I hope he will accept that it is a difficult one to answer. However, I understand the sentiments behind the point he makes.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked whether the Government have given serious consideration to the impact of this approach on the ability of RICS and other bodies to operate. I am happy to confirm that the Government and I will engage in discussion with RICS about this in the coming weeks before further stages of the Bill, and I will be keen to discuss with RICS all elements of the Bill, to understand its concerns and to see what reassurances I can provide.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 186 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 187
Vagrancy and begging
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
We are extremely concerned about the implications of this clause, and the explanation just given by the Minister does not reassure me one bit. Clause 187 is a placeholder clause that allows for a substantive clause to be introduced via Government amendment at a later stage in the Bill’s passage. Its effect is to disregard the full repeal of the Vagrancy Act 1824 that the House approved via amendments to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022.
There are two fundamental problems with the clause. First, in approving section 81 of the 2022 Act, the House made it clear that it wished the Vagrancy Act to be repealed in full, so that homelessness would no longer be criminalised. It did not seek to qualify the effect of that measure by stipulating that the repeal of the 1824 Act should be delayed until replacement legislation was brought forward, which appears to be the Government’s intention in inserting this placeholder clause in the Bill. The House voted purely and simply for repeal in full.
Secondly, precisely because clause 187 is a placeholder clause, we have absolutely no idea as we debate it today what the “suitable replacement legislation” will look like. It could include positive measures that featured in the consultation that the Minister mentioned, which was launched in April, such as multi-agency outreach, but there is a clear risk that any replacement regime introduced via the powers provided for by this clause could once again criminalise people who are begging or sleeping rough. We take the view that replacement legislation is not required at all. Existing legislation—including the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and the Fraud Act 2006—already provides the police with sufficient powers to tackle harmful types of begging, harassment, antisocial behaviour and exploitative activity. By expressly allowing for the reintroduction of criminal offences or civil penalties for conduct that is the same or similar to that under sections 3 and 4 of the Vagrancy Act, clause 187 enables the effective re-criminalisation of homelessness and rough sleeping, with all the damaging and counterproductive implications that that entails.
As the Minister has recognised, the Vagrancy Act is an embarrassing remnant of Georgian England’s approach to the poor and destitute. It deserves to be consigned to the dustbin of history in its entirety, rather than being surreptitiously restored in a modern form to enable the criminalisation of rough sleeping or passive begging. As I said, the House made its views on this matter clear during the passage of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act, but if the Minister is in any doubt about the strength of feeling on this issue, she need only look at the long list of names of Members from her own Benches who have signed amendment 1, in the name of the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken).
We do not intend to oppose clause 187 today, but if the Government do not voluntarily withdraw it from the Bill, we will work with Members from across the House to ensure that it is removed on Report. I hope that the Minister can give some indication today that that will not be necessary, and that the Government will reconsider their position.
Tim Farron
Likewise, I am appalled and deeply troubled by this provision. Clause 187 feels gratuitous—unnecessary. As we have heard, plenty of provisions already exist to allow the police to deal with antisocial behaviour that could be associated with rough sleeping and people who are begging. This clause feels unnecessary and counterproductive. Above all, it feels like an act of bad faith, given what the Government have committed to doing—both from the Treasury Bench in the Commons and from the Dispatch Box in the other place.
Tomorrow, we will either celebrate or mourn the 100th anniversary of the last Liberal leaving No. 10 —notwithstanding the current sleeper agent, obviously. The legislation that is brought back to life by this clause was nearly 100 years old, and out of date, back then, but even saying that is not going far enough, because if something is morally wrong, it is morally wrong no matter how old it is—whether it is 200, 100 or new, and whether it is from Georgian England, Lloyd George, or the current era. It is morally wrong to criminalise people for being homeless. It is pointless as well.
I have spent a number of nights over the years raising money for our local homelessness charity, Manna House in Kendal. We do a night sleeping rough in January up at Kendal castle. Some of the people who work with Manna House have slept rough in reality—in many cases for years. As we went through the difficulties of one night out in the open, the casual way they would speak about their experience on the street I found more chilling than the night air. It was not just the poverty, the hardship, the hunger and the cold; it was the sense of shame, the sense of not being fully human. A Crisis poll of people who are street homeless found that 56% felt that laws that criminalise them added to that sense of shame.
People who are in desperate housing need, and are on the street, need more than just a roof over their head—though they need that. They need sustained help in rebuildibng their life. Often there are addiction and other mental health issues that partner their homelessness, and may even have fuelled it. The last thing that they need is to be criminalised. There is no value to society in doing so. All that happens is that they are displaced to somewhere else. Instead, our society should be compelled to do something to meet their needs.
Dehenna Davison
That is why I made the point about the consultation we are running. We want to make sure that we get this right, which is why we sought views on this issue in a public consultation that closed in May. Analysis of those responses is ongoing and will form the backbone of our response to any new legislation. The measure is a placeholder until we can bring something forward. I recognise that it is not an ideal situation, but that is where we are.
Matthew Pennycook
I want to challenge the Minister on that point. If I heard her correctly, I think she said that the intention behind the clause is not to recriminalise homelessness.
Matthew Pennycook
Can she explain why subsection (2) allows regulations to include provision to create criminal offences, in similar ways to sections 3 and 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824, which the House voted to repeal? It effectively will allow for the recriminalisation of homelessness. I think she is wrong on that point, but if she could provide further clarification, I would appreciate it.
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.
Lee Rowley
The Government and the country need to ensure that world-class sustainable infrastructure can be consented to, vitally, in a manner that can support our ambitions for economic growth. To achieve that, we must have a robust planning system that is able to accelerate infrastructure delivery and to meet the forecast demands and complexity of projects coming forward in order to attract strong investment in infrastructure. Through these changes, the planning system can continue to lead in its approach to supporting the delivery of nationally significant infrastructure, which incentivises investment and makes it quicker to deliver that infrastructure.
The Government have an ambition in the national infrastructure strategy for some development consent applications entering the system from September next year to go through the process up to 50% faster from the start of pre-application to decision, but to achieve that a national infrastructure planning reform programme was established to refresh how the nationally significant infrastructure project works and to make it more effective and deliver better and faster outcomes. New clause 60, as a consequence, will amend the part of the existing NSIP process that concerns the examination of a development consent order application. Under existing legislation, the relevant Secretary of State can set an extended deadline for the examination of an application for development consent, but there is no corresponding legislative power to enable the same Secretary of State to set a shorter deadline for such an examination.
Our measure will rectify that, providing the means for the Secretary of State to set a shorter examination period for projects that meet quality standards as part of wider NSIP reform and the fast-track consenting route that we plan to put in place, as set out in the energy security strategy. The mechanisms and criteria that could trigger the exercise of that power by the Secretary of State will be set out in supporting guidance and we will commit to consulting on that in due course. I commend these measures to the Committee.
Matthew Pennycook
We have serious concerns about the potential implications of Government new clause 60, which, as the Minister has made clear, will provide the Secretary of State with the power to impose a shorter statutory timeframe for the examination stage of some NSIP applications.
In the policy note entitled “Improving performance of the NSIP planning process and supporting local authorities”, which was published in August to accompany the tabling of the Government new clause, the rationale cited for its introduction is specifically the need significantly to reduce the time it takes to gain consent for offshore wind projects in order to realise the commitment set out in the British energy security strategy. That objective is entirely laudable, but while we support efforts to improve the overall performance of the DCO system—a reform, after all, introduced by the last Labour Government to expedite decisions on large-scale infrastructure projects—the Government have not provided any convincing evidence that the length of the DCO examination stage is the reason why project consents can take too long to secure.
As the Minister will know, the DCO system already specifies a fixed timeframe of nine months for the planning inspectorate to make a final decision, with only six of those months being allocated to the examination stage. The Minister might have some convincing evidence that he can share with the Committee to explain why the six-month examination process is the reason why the Government believe that offshore wind projects are taking up to four years to gain consent, but we are not aware of any such evidence that has been published.
Allowing an appropriate time for a DCO examination is important not only because that enables inspectors to gather and analyse all the available evidence and the social and environmental impacts of projects properly to be interrogated, but because it is the part of the statutory process in which communities have a say over developments that are often likely to have a significant impact on their lives. If the Government want to hand themselves the power to curtail the timeframe in which that important part of the DCO process takes place, we feel strongly that they need to bring forward the evidence to justify such a measure, and they have not done so yet.
However, beyond that in-principle concern over reducing the time available for the public to engage with a detailed process, there is a further reason why we are concerned about the possible implications of the Government new clause, which is that its scope is not limited simply to offshore wind projects. Instead, the powers provided to the Secretary of State by the measure will seemingly apply to all DCO applications and any large-scale infrastructure project that meets as-yet-to-be-specified qualifying criteria.
To take a topical example, the powers could be applied to schemes for hydraulically fractured shale gas production, which I know is of deep concern to the new housing Minister and other Government Members. With the Government having abandoned their manifesto commitment by signalling the end of the fracking moratorium and with UK onshore oil and gas already gearing up to convince Ministers to designate fracking projects as nationally significant, the obvious concern about Government new clause 60 is that the Government will use it to facilitate fracking applications with only the most limited opportunity for local communities to have their say on them. That concern is made more acute by the fact that Ministers have so far failed to provide any detail on precisely how it will be determined that local consent for fracking schemes exists.
Given the serious nature of those concerns, I would be grateful if the Minister answered the following questions. First, what evidence do the Government have that the examination phase of the DCO process is unduly holding up consent for offshore wind and other large-scale renewable energy projects? Secondly, given that the new clause allows the Secretary of State to set an unspecified date for a deadline below the current six-month timeframe for DCO examinations, can the Minister give us a sense of how much shorter the Government believe the examination stage should be under the proposed fast-tracked DCO application process? Thirdly, when will the Government tell us what the qualifying criteria will be for large-scale infrastructure projects subject to shorter examination stage timeframes via this route? Lastly, do the Government intend to designate schemes for hydraulically fractured shale gas production as “nationally significant” and bring them within the purview of this new fast-tracked DCO process—yes or no? I look forward to hearing from the Minister and to returning no doubt to this matter as we consider the Bill further.
Lee Rowley
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his questions. Again, they are entirely reasonable and I will answer as many of them as I can. We recognise that this is a change to the approach, but it is a change that comes directly from a recognition, which I hope we all share, that where there is a desire to move quicker on important infrastructure for this country that we are able to do that. We have an in-principle ability to extend this process, which has been in place for a number of years, and—although I do not know the history—presumably ever since the Labour party started this process a number of years ago, as the hon. Gentleman indicated. Given that, it is not necessarily conceptually problematic that we have the ability to vary that in the other direction, while accepting the understandable challenge of ensuring that there are appropriate reassurances within the process that mean that it will be used in a reasonable and proportionate manner.
While I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point about the evidence base and working through all the detail and ensuring that it is reasonable and proportionate, we are trying to establish the principle that while there is already an ability to vary this timeline in one direction, we can also vary it in another direction. In that narrow sense of what we are trying to achieve, that is a reasonable thing to do. I will try to answer the hon. Gentleman’s questions as directly as I can. On evidence, I am happy to have a further discussion with him—either verbally or in writing, whatever his preference—going through why the Government think this is reasonable and proportionate. This is all part of a broader attempt to improve this in aggregate, and I hope that the Opposition will accept that pulling multiple levers to try to secure incremental improvements in all parts of the process is a laudable aim to pursue.
On the hon. Gentleman’s specific questions on the length of time the stage should take and the qualifying criteria, that can be dealt with in guidance. I will ensure that the officials have heard his concerns and I hope we can deal with them at the guidance stage. In addition, because we have given a commitment to consult, there will be an opportunity for that. We have an interest in providing that information in the detail that is sought, so that the Government can consider it in appropriate detail as well.
Finally, on fracking, I have strong views on hydraulic shale gas and hydraulic fracturing, which I have put on the record many times in this place, and I will continue to share those views. At the same time, and I hope the hon. Gentleman accepts that there are times and places to debate policies like this one, I am no longer a Minister in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. I am sure that there will be regular opportunities to develop this matter, but my own position is known and understood. On his specific question, hydraulic fracturing is not within the NSIP process. There was a consultation in 2018-19 in which the Government decided not to put it in the NSIP process at the time. Should that change, I would be happy to debate with him at the appropriate moment.
Amendment 197 agreed to.
Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Twenty Fifth sitting) Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateDepartment: Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities
Matthew Pennycook
Main Page: Matthew Pennycook (Labour - Greenwich and Woolwich)Department Debates - View all Matthew Pennycook's debates with the Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities
Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Twenty Fifth sitting)
Matthew Pennycook ExcerptsTuesday 18th October 2022
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 18 October 2022 - (18 Oct 2022)
Greg Smith
New clause 16 is relatively straightforward. It addresses an issue that arose from talking to Conservative and other councillors up and down the country in areas where rogue development—build now and seek to apologise or get retrospective planning permission later—has caused significant issues. The new clause would give the planning authorities the ability to take into account an applicant’s character, such as whether they have previous form on rogue or illegal development, when considering any fresh applications. It is relatively straightforward and aims to give our planning authorities more ability to protect their communities from rogue development.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Mark. New clause 37 in my name and that of my hon. Friends, is, like new clause 16, a simple amendment. I will not devote too much time to making the case for it.
We all agree that it is essential that the integrity of the planning system is upheld, not only to ensure that unauthorised development cannot blight local communities, but to maintain public trust and confidence in the planning decision-making process. When considering chapter 5 of the Bill, we had a number of debates about how planning enforcement might be improved as well as better resourced. A number of members of the Committee, including my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields, have spoken at length about the impact that rogue developers can have on communities across the country.
New clause 37 seeks to probe the Government on a specific issue of concern. As the hon. Member for Buckingham has just made clear, at present it appears that it is entirely permissible for an individual developer to consistently breach planning control, with the only risk being that they face enforcement action in respect of that specific breach. We believe that it is right that enforcement of planning law and regulation is based on the principle of proportionality and that when it comes to cases of alleged unauthorised development, local authorities have discretion to determine how the breach can be remedied. However, we also believe there is a strong case for changing the law so that certain categories of proscribed persons, in particular those who breach planning control and make no efforts to rectify those breaches, can be prohibited from carrying out development of any kind.
New clause 37 would allow that sanction to be applied to those who persistently offend when it comes to contraventions of planning law and regulation. Its objective is the same as new clause 16, on a character test and the prior record of an applicant. Adopting new clause 37, or a version of it, would reduce the burden on local authorities that are attempting to deal with the minority of rogue developers of this kind, and would also strengthen the integrity of the system overall. I hope the Government will give it serious consideration.
Lee Rowley
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham and the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich for their new clauses. I am extremely sympathetic to some of the concerns. I agree with the hon. Member that ensuring the integrity of the planning system is paramount. We will all have examples from across the country of where development does not occur in the way that is sanctioned, or before it is sanctioned, and then an attempt is made to gain planning permission retrospectively by those who are not necessarily following either the letter or the spirit of the rules as set down. It is extremely frustrating.
By the same token, we have to tread extraordinarily carefully here. There are a set of principles, which my hon. Friend and the hon. Member acknowledged in their speeches—that the planning system is based on a specific application, which should be judged accordingly on its merits. It is challenging to bring forward a form of character test within those principles, although I recognise that there is an issue here that many communities up and down the land are seeing.
As those who have debated it for longer than I have will know, the Bill already includes a significant package of measures that will help tackle persistent abuses of the system. Those will speed up the enforcement process, restrict the circumstances in which an appeal can be lodged, increase fines for non-compliance and discourage intentional unauthorised developments that rely on a slow enforcement timescale. The Government acknowledge some of the concerns and are trying to find appropriate levers with which to approach them.
While offering a commitment to continue to talk about this issue, although wanting to be being clear that it is extremely difficult in terms of legislation, as my hon. Friend and the hon. Member acknowledged, the Government are not minded to accept the new clauses. I therefore ask both Members not to press them.
Greg Smith
I welcome the commitment my hon. Friend has just made to carrying on the conversation. I accept the complexity, in a system that looks at individual cases, of bringing in a more universal test. However, there are other areas of life where people—for example, those with particular criminal records—are barred from doing certain activities—particularly where children are involved. If we could extend the principle and precedent whereby somebody who has form with rogue development—that is, turn up, build now and apologise later—which blights communities up and down the land, is barred through legislation that is practical and that does not undermine the planning system, I am up for carrying on that conversation. If not through the exact wording of this new clause, then perhaps by another means, we could find a happy solution that protects our communities from those who, I am sorry to say, continue to blight them by building out schemes that they do not have planning permission for.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the Minister for that response. I agree that we have to tread very carefully in this area; the principles that we have all spoken about, in terms of planning system proportionality and judgment on individual applications, are important. The Minister was not on the Committee at the time, but the Opposition broadly supported the measures outlined in chapter 5 of part 3, which strengthened enforcement. I welcome his commitment to continue the discussion outside the Committee, but I hope he gives the issue some serious thought.
I accept what the Minister said about the difficulties, particularly in terms of a character test, but at the same time it does not seem beyond the talents in this Committee Room—I will put it that way—to come up with a system that proscribes certain categories of person. Even if it was a threshold of a certain number of planning breaches in the past, beyond which someone cannot bring forward applications, there must be some way of doing it. A minority of rogue developers are causing havoc for communities and lots of work for planning departments in local authorities. We think the Government should give further thought to making progress on the issue.
Greg Smith
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 17
Community right of appeal
“(1) The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 78 (right to appeal against planning decisions and failure to take such decisions) insert—
‘78ZA Community right of appeal
(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision—
(a) enabling communities to appeal against a decision to grant planning permission or permission in principle for a development, and
(b) about such appeals.
(2) The regulations may require a certain number or proportion of residents of a local area to record objection against a decision for such an appeal to proceed.
(3) The regulations may, in particular, make provision the upholding of such appeals and the revocation of permission if—
(a) the development is inconsistent with a relevant neighbourhood plan, or
(b) due process has not been followed in relation to the planning application.
(4) The first regulations under this section must be laid before Parliament before the end of the period of six months beginning on the day on which this section comes into force.’” —(Greg Smith.)
This new clause would introduce a community right of appeal against the granting of planning permission.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Matthew Pennycook
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Buckingham. I think that hate might be too strong a word, but I certainly share his preference for in-person over virtual meetings, where possible. However, there are circumstances where virtual meetings have become necessary or useful, and that is what these new clauses both seek to address for the planning system.
While there are significant points of disagreement between the Opposition and Government Benches on the question of whether the Bill, in the round, will enhance or discourage community engagement in the planning process, there none the less exists a broad consensus that that objective is a worthy one. Whatever one believes the causes to be, there is general agreement that it is a problem that, as things stand, less than 1% of people engage with the local plan-making process, only around 3% engage with individual planning applications, and—of particular concern to the Opposition—particular segments of society typically have no voice whatsoever on planning decisions that will have a huge impact on their communities and their lives.
We therefore think that reducing barriers to engagement with the planning process would be beneficial for a variety of reasons. Chief among them—this is a point that I return to again and again—is that, in some ways, we think it would address the extremely low levels of trust and confidence that the public has in the planning system as a whole.
New clause 69, which, in many ways, is similar to new clause 28 in the name of the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet, seeks to increase public engagement in the planning process by allowing local authorities to hold planning committee meetings virtually or in a hybrid form. That proposal is obviously not novel. We know from the experience of local authorities during the pandemic that allowing for remote participation both worked effectively and had a number of benefits, including—as the hon. Member for Buckingham said—reduced travel times for councillors and the public, and greater transparency and openness.
What attracts us to this proposal is the fact that virtual meetings facilitated an increase—in many cases a dramatic one—of resident engagement in decisions, in part because remote participation made it far easier for a broader range of people, including those with disabilities, caring responsibilities and work commitments, to take part in meetings for the first time. New clause 69 simply seeks to ensure that those benefits, particularly increased public participation in planning decisions, can be enjoyed on a permanent basis.
However, it is important to say that it does not seek to do so prescriptively. While the language used is drawn from section 78 of the Coronavirus Act 2020, we would expect any regulations to follow to provide for local authorities to determine for themselves whether any given meeting is virtual or hybrid. That is on the basis that councils and councillors are best placed to decide how and when to use different meeting formats in particular circumstances. We feel strongly that it is important that they are given the freedom to do so.
There is widespread support for putting remote meeting arrangements on a permanent footing, including from the Local Government Association, Lawyers in Local Government, and the Association of Democratic Services Officers. As the Minister may know, the planning inspectorate already enjoys the freedom to offer virtual or hybrid meetings, at the discretion of a lead inspector, relating to hearings and inquiries.
To conclude, as every hon. Member knows, online meetings are now commonplace not just for work but for many other forms of social interaction. The public rightly expect that kind of accessibility for council meetings as well, and we are convinced that the freedom for local authorities to hold virtual or hybrid meetings will be welcomed by all our constituents.
We hope that allowing planning committees the option of meeting virtually, or permitting virtual participation in physical meetings, is an uncontroversial and common-sense measure. I hope that the Government are minded either to accept the new clause or, if they feel that it is defective in some way, to table one of their own that achieves the same aim.
Ben Bradley
I support the principles of the new clauses, although I will suggest a way in which they might need to be amended so as to apply not just to planning meetings, but to all council meetings. Throughout the pandemic, councils were allowed—and therefore invested in the technology—to permit members of the public to engage in council meetings through those mechanisms, and the public did. As the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich said, engagement in many of those conversations was much higher during the pandemic. People were able to engage with them more easily from their own homes, and they probably had “Coronation Street” on in the background. The more something allows people to take part in a much easier way, the better.
As officers and councillors increasingly work in a more hybrid way, we are encouraging our staff in Nottinghamshire to work from home more, not least because of the practicalities—staff expect that these days. Financially, we do not want, and cannot afford, to run as many buildings as we currently have. Fewer people are in the office. Every time we have a face-to-face meeting that does not need to be face to face, that requires people to trek across the county. It requires councillors to do a three-hour round trip, sometimes for a 20-minute meeting. It is a waste of resources.
Through the pandemic, we also found that we saved thousands of tonnes of carbon—never mind the travel expenses—by not trekking around the county for meetings. I struggle to get opposition councillors, never mind members of the public, to attend some of our governance and ethics meetings. Accessibility is not an issue in that sense.
If there is to be a change to the new clauses, I ask Ministers to make them broader, to include all council meetings. Our full council meeting will always be an in-person public meeting; it is the exciting, set-piece event at the heart of our council calendar. However, many other meetings need not be. Giving local government that flexibility would be very welcome.
There has been a process to review this issue. There was a consultation a year or so ago, I think, and local government was asked to submit views. I can confidently imagine that the broad consensus was, “Give us flexibility, please, to make those decisions locally.” We have done it before, and we can very easily do it again. When Ministers consider the new clauses behind the scenes, I ask that they make them broader still and give us the scope to make those decisions locally.
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”.
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 Sixth sitting) Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateDepartment: Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities
Matthew Pennycook
Main Page: Matthew Pennycook (Labour - Greenwich and Woolwich)Department Debates - View all Matthew Pennycook's debates with the Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities
Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Twenty Sixth sitting)
Matthew Pennycook ExcerptsThursday 20th October 2022
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 20 October 2022 - (20 Oct 2022)
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
As we are approaching the end of this Committee’s life, I will take the opportunity to thank the Clerks, Doorkeepers, Hansard reporters and House staff for facilitating our work over what I must say has felt—I do not disparage the Committee in saying this—like a lot longer than four months. We are, thankfully, near the end. This is a simple, straightforward and, I hope, unproblematic new clause for the Government, so I do not need to detain the Committee long in speaking to it.
Despite the strong arguments made by the Opposition at the time—I recall them personally because I served on the Bill Committee—the Government were determined to include within the Housing and Planning Act 2016 provisions requiring local authorities to sell higher-value council homes as they fell vacant, and to remit the income generated from such sales to the Treasury to fund the extension of the right to buy to housing association tenants. The sections of that Act that required local authorities to make a payment in respect of their vacant higher-value council homes came into force on 12 May 2016, but the consequential determinations were never made.
Having, one assumes, finally appreciated the severe impracticalities of the measure, as well as, one hopes, the social consequences of further reducing England’s already depleted social housing stock, the Government announced in their 2018 social housing Green Paper that they would no longer require local authorities to make higher-value-asset payments. In the words of that Green Paper, the sale of high-value homes
“should be a decision to be made locally, not mandated through legislation”
as they had previously felt was necessary.
However, in addition to making it clear that the Government would not bring those provisions of the 2016 Act into effect, the 2018 Green Paper said that the Government would look to repeal the relevant legislation, “when parliamentary time allows”. Yet, with four years having passed, and all manner of legislation having been taken through the House during that time, the Government have still not repealed those provisions.
New clause 67 simply seeks to have the Government finally implement the decision that they made and outlined in the 2018 Green Paper, and thereby undo the mistake that they made six years ago.
Mr Hollobone, we both know that Ministers have been clearly told to resist all amendments to this Bill, however sensible they might be, but I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire, might see, on this occasion, the soundness of the new clause. I do not think that there is any credible or justifiable reason why this Bill cannot be the legislative vehicle to undo the provision, which the Government have decided should not have been in the 2016 Act. However, if he will not do that, will he please tell us when and how the Government intend to do what they committed, in 2018, to do?
Lee Rowley
As the hon. Gentleman anticipates, I will not be encouraging the Committee to accept this amendment, although I understand the points behind it, which the hon. Gentleman has already articulated. In the spirit of his brevity, I will seek to be so, too.
The Government have made a number of commitments previously and stand by those commitments. As the hon. Gentleman has indicated, the provisions laid out in chapter 2 of part 4 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 have not been brought into effect, and there is no intention of doing so. The provisions lack a regulatory framework to underpin the policy, so there is no risk of local authorities being subject to them before we are able to legislate in the future.
The Government remain of the view that legislation will be brought forward, but do not believe that the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill is the best vehicle for that, as it does not largely address social housing. We therefore wish to focus on the measures within this Bill, while recognising that there will be no change to the status quo—the reality for local authorities around the country—on this matter. We will bring forward further consideration of this point in due course.
Matthew Pennycook
I welcome that response from the Minister, and particularly his clarification that there will be no change to the status quo. However, I am slightly puzzled because I cannot think of a Bill better placed to deal with a housing and planning provision in a previous Act. The Minister says that such legislation is forthcoming. There is no sign of when that is, or what it might be. I think that we may return to this at a later stage, but I will not divide the Committee on it this morning. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
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.”—(Matthew Pennycook.)
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.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
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.
Lee Rowley
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for this new clause, yet unsurprisingly we will be asking him to withdraw it, too. I understand the sentiments behind it. I think we would all agree that we want a planning system that works and is effective, efficient and expedited where possible, and that appropriate consideration should be given at local level to ensure that placemaking is at the heart of what it does, but this particular new clause is, in my view, too prescriptive. This almost takes me back to my pre-parliamentary days when we were doing organisational design within individual companies. The one thing that we had as a principle was that organisational design needed to be flexible between different organisations, depending on their needs and requirements at the time and the areas that they needed to focus on.
Of course planning should always be a focus, but it is another question whether we need to put formal lines between particular officers and the chief executive, if there even are chief executives in certain local authorities—there are not all the time—so there is a secondary level of conversation about whether it would be section 151 officers or would be dealt with elsewhere. But I do not want to get too lost in the weeds. Although I accept the sentiment of the hon. Gentleman, I do not think it is proportionate to mandate these kinds of elements. I absolutely agree with him that local councils should discharge their responsibilities adequately, carefully and expeditiously. I hope that they will do that. We will continue to consider, in the Department, what we can do to ensure that that happens. But on this occasion, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider withdrawing the new clause, given that I do not think it is necessary.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the Minister for that response. I take on board and appreciate the point that he makes about proportionality and whether this new clause is too prescriptive in that regard. I hope that he at least sees the concern that we have tried to highlight with the new clause, which is not only, as I said, the general issue with skills capacity but the status of planning officers within local authorities as a whole and whether that has an impact on planning outcomes. I hope that, given what I have said, the Minister will go away and give the issue some further consideration, not least in terms of what we will come to shortly, which is the skills strategy that the Government are outlining, but I do not intend to press the new clause to a Division. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 71
Comprehensive resources and skills strategy for the planning sector
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of this Bill securing Royal Assent, publish a comprehensive resources and skills strategy for the planning sector.
(2) The strategy published under subsection (1) must—
(a) include an assessment of the effectiveness of local planning authorities and statutory consultees in delivering upon their existing duties and functions,
(b) include an assessment of the additional resource required for local planning authorities and statutory consultees to carry out new responsibilities and duties established by this Act,
(c) set out a funding strategy for a minimum five-year period that meets the assessed resource need under paragraph (2)(b),
(d) include an assessment of the skills and capability of the planning sector and statutory consultees to carry out new responsibilities and duties established by the Act, and
(e) explain how the Secretary of State intends to address the skills and capability needs of the planning sector as set out under paragraph (2)(d).”—(Matthew Pennycook.)
This new clause would commit the Secretary of State to publishing a comprehensive resources and skills strategy for the planning sector within 12 months of the Bill securing Royal Assent and would specify what such a strategy should include.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Me again, Mr Hollobone. New clause 71 is in my name and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Nottingham North and for Coventry North East. As I made clear just now, the Government have promised to bring forward a planning skills strategy for local planning authorities, and the commitment to do so is set out in the policy paper that accompanies the Bill. We believe that a strategy to address the skills gap is essential to improving the planning system and we support the Government’s efforts in this area. Not only is there an existing problem—as we have just discussed—when it comes to skills shortages within local authority planning departments, but, as we have discussed in many previous sittings, the Bill will require the implementation of entirely new processes; an increase in planning staff with specific specialist skills such as design; and improved capabilities, not least in terms of a mastery of digital and geospatial data and technologies. Therefore, additional pressures are coming down the line as a result of this legislation.
However, the commitment included in the policy paper accompanying the Bill refers only to a planning skills strategy rather than the
“comprehensive resources and skills strategy”
proposed in the 2020 “Planning for the future” White Paper. We believe that that is problematic. As we have debated on numerous occasions during this Committee’s proceedings, there is a clear need for additional resources for local planning authorities—a need that the many new burdens and duties provided for by the Bill will only serve to render more acute. We therefore believe that the Government were right in the 2020 White Paper to commit to a more comprehensive strategy that encompassed both skills and resources. New clause 71 would place a duty on the Government to publish that more comprehensive strategy within 12 months of the Bill securing Royal Assent and would specify what such a strategy should contain. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Lee Rowley
This is an interesting new clause but one that I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw. I think we share the underlying objective, which is to ensure that our planning system is well resourced, well managed and well executed, but there is the general question of whether we need to legislate for these things, and my view is that we do not need to legislate in the depth that he suggests. I hope he will take some assurance from the fact that this has been discussed several times in my short period in post, including as recently as yesterday, when I spoke to the chief planner on this matter. We continue to consider it in what I hope the hon. Gentleman would think is the detail it deserves. However, I hope he will withdraw the new clause, because I am of the view that the issue does not require legislation in order for the discussion to continue.
Matthew Pennycook
I appreciate the Minister’s response. The new clause was probing, as he will have seen, and I therefore do not intend to press it to a vote. I am reassured that he has already discussed the issue—several times, I think he said—in his short time in post. I hope he will take away the points that I made. We think we need a skills strategy, and I urge him to think about how planning departments in local authorities might be better resourced to do what they need to do. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 72
Local consent for onshore wind projects in England
“(1) The Secretary of State shall within six months of this Bill securing Royal Assent remove from the National Planning Policy Framework the current restrictions on the circumstances in which proposed wind energy developments involving one or more turbines should be considered acceptable.”—(Matthew Pennycook.)
This new clause would commit the Secretary of State to revising the National Planning Policy Framework within 12 months of the Bill securing Royal Assent to remove the onerous restrictions it currently places on the development of onshore wind projects by deleting footnote 54.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 82—Onshore wind planning applications—
“(1) The Planning Act 2008 is amended in accordance with subsection (2).
(2) In section 15 (generating stations), leave out subsection (2)(aa).
(3) Before Chapter 2 of Part 3 of this Act comes into force, the Secretary of State must publish a statement of the Government’s plan to revise national planning guidance to support local planning authorities to grant onshore wind applications below 50MW.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (3), ‘national planning guidance’ includes—
(a) the National Planning Policy Framework and any subordinate, subsequent or successor guidance for local planning authorities;
(b) the Planning Practice Guidance on Renewable and Low Carbon Energy;
(c) the National Planning Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure.
(5) No later than one month after this Act comes into force, the Secretary of State must publish a report setting out the Government’s plan to encourage and support community energy projects.
(6) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the report in subsection (5) before both Houses of Parliament.”
Matthew Pennycook
I tabled new clause 72 some time ago, with a view to pressing the Government to remove the de facto moratorium imposed for many years on the development of onshore wind. The growth plan, published late last month, committed the Government to doing just that, by bringing onshore wind planning policy into line with planning for other forms of infrastructure. As hon. Members know, most of the measures set out in that growth plan have been junked as part of the humiliating mini-Budget U-turn, but having seen no evidence to the contrary—the Minister might disappoint me again in this regard—we assume that the decision to remove onshore wind planning restrictions is one of the few to have survived the cull. Even if that is the case, it remains unclear how the Government intend to deliver on that commitment, so that this cheap form of renewable energy generation can be deployed more easily across England. New clause 82 probes the Government on that point.
Three categories of onshore wind project are needed in large numbers: first, projects that are larger than the 50 MW threshold for nationally significant infrastructure projects; secondly, projects that are below that 50 MW threshold; and, thirdly, smaller community energy projects. Each is addressed specifically by new clause 82. Proposed new subsections (1) and (2) would unpick the 2016 regulations that removed onshore wind in England from the nationally significant infrastructure projects process set out in the Planning Act 2008, meaning that proposed onshore over 50 MW could secure consent through the development consent order system. Subsections (3) and (4) would require the Government to set out in a written ministerial statement how national planning guidance will be amended quickly to enable local authorities to determine applications for onshore wind projects below 50 MW. Finally, subsections (5) and (6) would require the Government to bring forward a plan clarifying how smaller community energy projects will be supported.
To meet our emissions reduction targets and the predicted increase in demand for electricity in coming decades, as the decarbonisation of our economy advances, there is a pressing need to increase our onshore wind capacity rapidly. The Climate Change Committee recommended the installation of between 22 GW and 29 GW by the end of this decade. As Labour Members will continue to argue, doing that at pace would have the added benefit of reducing bills, creating good jobs and bolstering our energy security.
I hope that the Minister will engage thoughtfully with the new clauses, and perhaps provide the Committee with some answers as to how the Government intend to implement the decision set out in the growth plan in respect of onshore wind.
Lee Rowley
The hon. Gentleman has received some assurances since he tabled new clause 72. The Government have looked at the issue again, and I am grateful for his acknowledgment of that. I am afraid that I will disappointment him. I completely understand and accept the importance of the issue, while acknowledging that it is a sensitive one in certain parts of the country. I accept that the Committee has been in existence for many months, debating many important things, but given the salience and importance of this policy issue to our broader national discourse, I suggest that it be considered more broadly than simply in this Committee. We will bring forward further information about our continuing commitments and intentions in this area in due course. However, that is not something I can do in Committee.
Matthew Pennycook
The Minister is determined to disappoint me in our exchanges, but I accept that he feels unable to opine on the Government’s intentions regarding the onshore wind that they have committed to allowing via the planning system and the various routes that I have mentioned. I hope that the situation will be clarified at a later stage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 73
Duty with regard to climate change
“(1) The Secretary of State must have special regard to achieving the mitigation of and adaptation to climate change when preparing—
(a) national policy or advice relating to the development or use of land,
(b) a development management policy pursuant to section 38ZA of the PCPA 2004.
(2) The Secretary of State must aim to ensure consistency with achieving the mitigation of and adaptation to climate change when exercising a relevant function under a planning enactment.
(3) A relevant planning authority when—
(a) exercising a planning function must have special regard to, and aim to ensure consistency with, achieving the mitigation of and adaptation to climate change, and
(b) making a planning decision must aim to ensure the decision is consistent with achieving the mitigation of and adaptation to climate change.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (3), a relevant planning authority is as set out in section 81 (a) and (b) and (d) to (j).
(5) For the purposes of subsection (2) a relevant function is a function that relates to the development or use of land.
(6) For the purposes of subsection (3) a planning function is the preparation of—
(a) a spatial development strategy;
(b) a local plan;
(c) a minerals and waste plan;
(d) a supplementary plan; or
(e) any other policy or plan that will be used to inform a planning decision.
(7) For the purposes of subsections (3) and (6) a planning decision is a decision relating to—
(a) the development or use of land arising from an application for planning permission;
(b) the making of a development order; or
(c) an authorisation pursuant to a development order.
(8) In relation to neighbourhood planning, a qualifying body preparing a draft neighbourhood plan or development order must have special regard to achieving the mitigation of and adaptation to climate change.
(9) For the purposes of this section, achieving the mitigation of climate change shall include the achievement of—
(a) the target for 2050 set out in section 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008, and
(b) applicable carbon budgets made pursuant to section 4 of the Climate Change Act 2008.
(10) For the purposes of this section, achieving adaptation to climate change shall include the achievement of long-term resilience to climate-related risks, including—
(a) the mitigation of the risks identified in the latest climate change risk assessment conducted under section 56 of the Climate Change Act 2008, and
(b) the achievement of the objectives of the latest flood and coastal erosion risk management strategy made pursuant to section 7 of the Flood and Coastal Water Management Act 2010.”—(Matthew Pennycook.)
This new clause would place an overarching duty on the Secretary of State, local planning authorities and those involved in neighbourhood plan-making to achieve the mitigation and adaptation of climate change when preparing plans and policies or exercising their functions in planning decision-making.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
It is fitting that new clause 73 is the last that I will move, because it deals with an issue that I care deeply about. I have been at pains, throughout our more than 20 sittings, to highlight that from our point of view, the Bill is a missed opportunity to fully align the planning system with our climate mitigation and adaptation goals.
The Committee has discussed climate change in debates on several amendments, but not in any great detail. Runaway global heating is by far the most significant challenge faced by the country and the world, so I return to the subject to try once again to convince Ministers to amend the Bill to improve how the planning system responds to the climate emergency.
As I have argued, although there are exemplary English development schemes, they are notable exceptions, and it is patently obvious that the planning system in general is not playing its full part in responding to climate change. Indeed, in numerous important respects, it is actively hindering our ability to mitigate and adapt to global heating. The Labour party’s strong view is that more must be done to ensure that the planning system contributes effectively to the delivery of our emissions reduction targets, and that new development produces resilient and climate-proofed places. That view is shared by the Climate Change Committee; its 2022 progress report recommends that
“Net Zero and climate resilience should be embedded within the planning reforms that are expected as part of the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill.”
We take that view because it is clear that existing duties and requirements, which set out how the planning system should help to achieve net zero, are not producing the required results.
The national planning policy framework requires planning to
“shape places in ways that contribute to radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions”.
In addition, local planning authorities have a statutory duty under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 to include in local plans policies to ensure that development and use of land mitigates and adapts to climate change. They also have powers, under the Planning and Energy Act 2008, to require new developments to source a proportion of their energy requirements from renewable and/or low-carbon and local sources, and, under the Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017, to prioritise measures to tackle climate change at a plan-led level as a strategic priority.
Despite that plethora of duties, requirements and powers, the planning system regularly throws up decisions that are seemingly incompatible with the need to make rapid progress toward net zero emissions by mid-century. To give the Committee a topical example, the Planning Inspectorate recently told West Oxfordshire District Council to remove from the area action plan for a new garden village at Salt Cross requirements to demonstrate net zero operational carbon on site through ultra-low energy fabric specification, low-carbon technologies and on-site renewable energy generation, on the basis that they were not justified or consistent with national policy.
It is clear not only that Ministers have never prioritised the issue of how the planning system can drive climate action, but that the duties and requirements in legislation are insufficiently robust and fail to consistently shape the decisions of local planning authorities, or of the planning inspectors examining plans or appeals. Similarly, the national planning policy framework does not ensure that national policy contributes fully to climate change mitigation and adaptation. Although the Government promised to review it with a view to strengthening guidance on net zero, there is still no sign of the NPPF prospectus that one of the previous Housing Ministers who served on the Committee—forgive me; I forget which one—promised us would materialise this summer. As we argued many sitting ago during the debate on amendment 101 on plan making, the Government should overhaul the Bill to ensure that both national policy and local planning align fully with the commitments in the Climate Change Act 2008, and with statutory frameworks that provide for resilience to climate impacts, such as flooding and heatwaves.
Although there are commendable examples of local authorities seeking to bring forward local plans that include quantified, strategic-level carbon reduction targets, they are few and far between. That is likely to remain the case until the Government produce clear and unambiguous national policy guidance and a purposeful statutory framework to align every aspect of the planning system with net zero. The former requires the production of a revised NPPF that fully supports the drive toward net zero, but the latter can be accomplished by the Government accepting new clause 73, which would place an overarching duty on the Secretary of State, local planning authorities and those involved in neighbourhood plan making to achieve the mitigation and adaptation of climate change when preparing plans and policies, or exercising their functions in planning decision making.
Lee Rowley
In the spirit of the brevity that you have requested, Mr Hollobone, let me say that I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the new clause, and I share his optimism about our ability to deal with climate change, but I also recognise that that it will take time, as we outlined in debate on previous clauses. Consequently, I will resist the new clause.
As the hon. Gentleman outlined in a number of ways that I will not repeat, there are already significant legal requirements on local authorities to consider climate change, as well as a national policy requiring local planning authorities to take a proactive approach to climate change. I cannot give any guarantees, but I will certainly consider his points, because that is an important part of the housing brief. On this occasion, however, the new clause is unnecessary, and I ask him to withdraw it.
Matthew Pennycook
The Minister will appreciate that I find that response disappointing; there is a clear difference of opinion. We think that the existing duties, requirements and guidance are not having the intended effect that he outlined, and we feel strongly that there is a case for amending primary legislation to ensure that the planning system aligns fully with the Climate Change Act and other statutory frameworks.
I know that we are on the clock, Mr Hollobone, so I will not labour those points, which have been made before, but to drive home how important we feel the issue is, I will press the new clause to a Division.
Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateDepartment: Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities
Matthew Pennycook
Main Page: Matthew Pennycook (Labour - Greenwich and Woolwich)Department Debates - View all Matthew Pennycook's debates with the Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities
Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill
Matthew Pennycook ExcerptsTuesday 13th December 2022
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 13 December 2022 - large print - (13 Dec 2022)
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I think it may be useful to colleagues if I explain how we intend to conduct the debate. Many Members wish to speak, and there have been and will be quite lengthy Front-Bench speeches. The debate has to finish at 6 o’clock. I want to give priority to those who have amendments tabled in their names—by and large, not everybody. I will have to put on a time limit of six minutes or five minutes. If we do not do that, we will not have a chance of getting anywhere near everyone in, or even everyone who has tabled amendments. That is just a warning—the time limit will come in after the shadow Minister.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
I rise to speak to the new clauses and amendments in my name and those of my hon. Friends. It is two weeks and two significant concessions to large groups of disgruntled Government Back Benchers later, but it is a pleasure to finally be back in the Chamber to conclude the Report stage of this Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) made clear on day one of Report, in 27 sittings over a four-month period, the Bill was subject to exhaustive line-by-line consideration. Such was the appetite to participate in the Committee’s proceedings that not only was it formally adjourned to allow new members to take part, but we enjoyed appearances from seven different Ministers, some of whom even had more than a passing familiarity with the contents of the legislation.
I thank my hon. Friends the Members for York Central (Rachael Maskell), for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) and for Coventry North East (Colleen Fletcher) and the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) for so ably scrutinising in Committee the many technical and complex provisions that the Bill contains. The new clauses and amendments that we have tabled for consideration today are almost identical to a number of those we discussed at length in Committee. That deliberate choice reflects not only the importance we place on the matters that they relate to, but the lack of anything resembling robust and convincing reassurances from Ministers in Committee in respect of the concerns that they seek to address. Indeed, if anything, the debates that took place and the responses provided by successive Ministers served only to harden our view that a number of the measures in the Bill relating to planning and the environment would almost certainly have adverse impacts.
Our hope, perhaps a forlorn one, Madam Deputy Speaker, is that the new ministerial team may have used the almost 50 days since their appointment to further interrogate the potential risks posed by those measures in the Bill that are controversial and to reflect on the wisdom of proceeding with them.
Part 3 of the Bill deals with a wide range of issues relating to both national planning policy and local and neighbourhood planning. Many of the clauses that this eclectic part contains are unproblematic, but others are contentious, and we raised detailed concerns in Committee about several of them. Amendments 78 and 79 seek to address arguably the most disquieting, namely clauses 83 and 84, concerning the future relationship between local development plans and national planning policy given statutory weight in the form of national development management policies. We welcome the fact that new section 38(5B) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 in clause 83 provides communities with greater confidence that finalised local plans will be adhered to and any safeguards they contain respected. However, we believe that new subsection 5C in clause 83, in providing that anything covered by an NDMP will not only have legal status but will take precedence over local development plans in any instance where there is found to be a conflict between the two, represents a radical centralisation of planning decision-making that will fundamentally alter the status and remit of local planning in a way that could have a number of potentially damaging consequences.
I must make it clear that our concern in relation to the effect of this subsection would exist even if the Government had published the national planning policy framework prospectus and provided hon. Members with an overview about what NDMPs are likely to cover. The fact that they have not and that we therefore still have no idea precisely what these new statutory national policies will eventually contain—coupled with the fact that clause 84 of the Bill makes it clear that NDMPs can cover any policy area relating to development or use of land in England and can be modified or revoked without any form of consultation if that is the wish of the Secretary of State of the day—merely heightens our concerns.
We know that there is significant anxiety across the House about the future implications of NDMPs, and rightly so, because legislating to ensure that they overrule local plans in the event of any conflict does represent a radical departure from the status quo. As we argued in Committee, what is proposed is a wholly different proposition from the current application of the NPPF, and our fear is that it will lead to the erosion of local control in a way that threatens to transform what is currently a local plan-led system into a national policy-led system.
Sir John Hayes
The hon. Gentleman must recognise that the local plan process has been distorted by the imposition of housing targets driven from the centre. Indeed, individual planning applications have often been skewed because local authorities, even where they do not want to accept the application, feel they cannot reject it because they would lose on appeal if they are not meeting the national housing targets. Surely he would welcome the Government’s sharp turn in that direction.
Matthew Pennycook
That is slightly separate from my point about NDMPs, but the right hon. Gentleman gives me an opportunity to respond to the Government’s announcement on housing targets. The problem he identifies ultimately resides in the Government’s lack of strategic planning and effective subregional frameworks for housing growth. There is a case for reviewing how local housing targets operate, but to render them effectively unenforceable without a viable alternative, in the middle of a housing crisis, is the height of irresponsibility. We do not know the extent, but it will cause damage by reducing housing supply, with the economic growth impact that implies. We regret that the Government have backed down in the face of their Back Benchers on this point.
Sir John Hayes
I have not heard the hon. Gentleman perform at the Dispatch Box before, but he clearly knows his subject well and delivers his case effectively. There has long been a misunderstanding that housing is entirely about supply, as it is also about the fluidity of the housing market. He might want to add to his considerable stock of knowledge an understanding that, according to the Empty Homes Agency, there are 750,000 empty homes. That number is persistent, and no Government of any colour have managed to adopt policies to bring those homes into use.
Matthew Pennycook
There is a point to what the right hon. Gentleman says. It is partly about the distribution of who can buy the houses that come online, but it is also partly about supply. The Minister has confirmed that the 300,000 annual target remains Government policy. It remains an aspiration, yet the Government, by removing the enforceability of local housing targets, have made their job of boosting supply far harder, and they are not meeting the target as it stands.
Several hon. Members rose—
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman represents a seat in outer London, so he will understand that there are constraints on the ability of some areas to absorb development. The Government are simply saying that a local authority should use best endeavours but that there will be circumstances in which it simply cannot meet an arbitrary numeric target. As an MP for an urban area, surely that is something he should welcome.
Matthew Pennycook
I disagree with the right hon. Gentleman’s analysis. We do not know precisely what the Government have in mind for local housing targets, but my reading of their announcement is not that local authorities will simply use best endeavours. Although local house building targets will remain as an aspiration, they will not be enforced and we will therefore see a hit to housing supply, with a resulting hit to economic growth.
Matthew Pennycook
I want to make some progress, so I will not give way.
We take issue with the Government making local housing targets unenforceable in the absence of a viable alternative to try to maintain supply.
We believe it is essential not only that the process by which the Secretary of State must designate and review an NDMP involves minimum public consultation requirements and an appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny, but that the scope of an NDMP to override local plans is suitably constrained. On that basis, I commend amendments 78 and 79 to the House.
Part 4 addresses the new infrastructure levy, which is the Government’s proposed replacement for the present arrangement by which local planning authorities secure developer contributions. We believe the new levy is one of the most consequential aspects of the Bill and has potentially far-reaching implications not only for the provision of core infrastructure but for the supply of affordable housing. Although we fully appreciate that schedule 11 merely provides the basic framework for the levy, with a detailed design to follow, and that the levy’s implementation will take a test-and-learn approach, we are convinced that, as a proposition, it is fundamentally flawed.
As we argued in great detail in Committee, the deficiencies inherent in a rigid fixed-rate mechanism for securing both infrastructure and affordable housing, based on the metric of gross development value, almost certainly means the levy will prove onerously complicated to operate in practice and that, overall, it will deliver less infrastructure and less affordable housing in the future, while putting the development of less viable sites at risk.
For that reason, we remain of the view that if the infrastructure levy is taken forward, it should be optional rather than mandatory, with local authorities that believe that the needs of their areas are best served by the existing developer contributions system able to continue to utilise it. Taken together, amendments 81 to 83 and 91 would ensure that local authorities retain that discretion, and I hope the new Minister, whom I welcome to her place, will consider them carefully, along with amendment 86, which seeks to address a specific concern about how viability testing will inform the levy rate-setting process.
Amendment 84 seeks to ensure that if the Government insist it is made mandatory, the new infrastructure levy must deliver sufficient levels of affordable housing. Since the publication of the Bill, Ministers have repeated ad nauseam that the new levy will secure at least as much affordable housing as developer contributions do now, yet the Government have so far been unable to provide any evidence or analysis to substantiate why they believe it can fulfil that objective. More importantly, there is nothing in the Bill to ensure that the commitment made by successive Ministers with regard to affordable housing will be honoured. At present, proposed new section 204G(2) of the Planning Act 2008—in schedule 11, on page 291 of the Bill—only requires charging authorities to have regard to the desirability of ensuring that levels of affordable housing are
“maintained at a level which, over a specified period, is equal to or exceeds the level of such housing and funding provided over an earlier specified period of the same length.”
Put simply, the Bill as drafted would enable—one might even say encourage—inadequate levels of affordable housing supply to remain the norm by making them the minimum requirement.
If we want to ensure that the new levy secures at least as much affordable housing as is being delivered through the existing developer contributions system—and ideally more—we believe the Bill needs to be revised. That is not a view confined only to this side of the House. In the foreword to a report published only yesterday by the Centre for Social Justice, the hon. Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes)—himself a former Minister in the Department—argues in relation to the levy that
“it would be good to see stronger safeguards in primary legislation, rather than in regulations, for protecting and increasing the existing levels of affordable housing supply funded in this way”.
Not for the first time, I find myself in agreement with the hon. Gentleman.
Bob Seely
One of the specific things that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) and I requested in our agreement with Ministers was to make it easier for councils to increase the percentage of affordable housing. Clearly there is the economics of how that can happen, but we absolutely encouraged them to allow us to have that wording, so that in a place such as the Isle of Wight we could dramatically increase affordable housing as a percentage of housing. We actually put this at the centre of our plans.
Matthew Pennycook
Increasing the supply of affordable housing, which is at pitifully low levels, is a laudable aim. I agree with the hon. Member on that, and I therefore hope he can support our amendment 84, because it would achieve the objective in relation to the infrastructure levy by requiring charging authorities to ensure that levels of affordable housing are maintained at a level that, over a specified period, enables any given authority to meet the housing need identified in its local development plan, and I commend it to the House.
Turning to part 5 of the Bill, this concerns the Government’s proposed new approach to assessing the potential environmental effects of relevant plans and major projects—namely, environmental outcomes reports. Chief among several concerns we have about the proposed EOR system are the deficiencies of clause 122 in relation to non-regression safeguards. While we welcome the inclusion of this clause in the Bill as a means of constraining the use of the wider regulation-making powers in part 5, we are concerned that the clause as drafted contains a series of loopholes. First, use of the relevant non-regression provisions is entirely at the discretion of the Secretary of State. Secondly, the Bill stipulates that the principle of non-regression will only apply to the
“overall level of environmental protection”,
rather than specific aspects of it. Thirdly, the definition of environmental law used in the relevant subsection will limit the extent to which it can provide protection against potential future regression.
The Minister who responded to the debate on this issue in Committee provided some measure of reassurance as to why the clause is drafted in the way it is, but our concerns have not been entirely assuaged. We have tabled amendment 88 to ensure that the new system of environmental assessment would not reduce existing environmental protections in any way, and I look forward to hearing how the Minister responds to it in due course.
We want to see many other changes to the Bill. Among other things, we have tabled amendments and new clauses to ensure that the Government undertake a comprehensive review of the extension of permitted development rights since 2013; to allow local authorities to hold planning meetings virtually or in hybrid form; and to place a duty on local planning authorities to appoint suitably qualified chief planning officers.
Of particular importance to us is the need to ensure that the Bill fully aligns the planning system with the UK’s climate mitigation and adaptation goals. In Committee, Ministers argued repeatedly that existing local and national duties, requirements and powers are sufficient to ensure that the planning system responds as required to the climate emergency, yet that is demonstrably not the case, given that the system regularly throws up decisions that are seemingly incompatible with the need to make rapid progress towards net zero emissions by mid-century and to prepare the country for the changes that are already under way. That is likely to remain the case until the Government produce clear and unambiguous national policy guidance, in the form of a revised NPPF, and legislate for a purposeful statutory framework to ensure genuine coherence between our country’s planning system and its climate commitments. New clause 98 would deliver the latter, and I urge Members to support it.
Before I turn to a number of the substantial Government amendments that have been tabled since the Bill left Committee, I will speak briefly to new clause 114. As you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, despite a notional majority of more than 80, the Government are developing an alarming habit of allowing national policy to be dictated by the demands of amorphous groups of their own Back Benchers. In the case of onshore wind deployment, the Government’s weakness in the face of such demands is all ostensibly to the good, because Ministers are now seemingly committed to amending the NPPF to finally end the harmful effective moratorium imposed on onshore wind since 2015.
However, the written ministerial statement published last Tuesday provoked more questions than it answered. For example, what criteria will Ministers specify to determine what qualifies as a demonstration of local support for onshore wind projects, given that there is certainly no clear indication that the Government are minded to bring consenting for onshore wind in line with other forms of infrastructure, as it should be?
To take another, there is the assertion in that statement that we need
“to move away from the overly rigid requirement for onshore wind sites to be designated in a local plan.”—[Official Report, 6 December 2022; Vol. 724, c. 9WS.]
What is meant by that? The Minister will know that sites do not have to be identified in local plans to receive consent for onshore wind deployment, but there is a strong presumption that they should be, and rightly so. If we are to strengthen our energy security, cut bills and reduce emissions, we need local authorities to proactively consider the opportunities within their boundaries for the deployment of all forms of renewable energy, including onshore wind generation.
Given the degree of ambiguity that now surrounds the Government’s position, it is hard to escape the conclusion that the Secretary of State has simply sought to buy himself the time he needs to get this legislation passed by alighting on a form of words nebulous enough to temporarily appease the warring factions within his party.
New clause 114, in contrast, is clear and unambiguous. It would require the Government to remove the onerous restrictions that the NPPF places on the development of onshore wind projects, and it would ensure that local communities have their say via the planning process, without imposing a uniquely restrictive consenting regime upon only this form of renewable energy generation. It would ensure that local authorities must at least explore the desirability of renewable energy deployment, including onshore wind, as part of the local plan preparation process, and I commend the new clause to the House.
Turning finally to a number of the Government amendments that have been tabled in recent weeks, Government new clauses 49 to 59 insert an entirely new part into the Bill, as the Minister said, that enables community land auction pilots to take place. As many Members will be aware, such auctions are not a novel concept, having been first proposed as far back as 2005. On paper, the premise appears entirely sensible. Landowners would have the freedom to voluntarily come together to grant options over land in the area of a participating local planning authority, with a view to it being allocated for development in the local plan. On the assumption that the option value would be significantly less than the market value for housing development, and that landlords will release said land at the lower price to realise the guaranteed short-term return, the authority in question will be able to exercise or sell the option, capturing some of the increased value uplift and using it to support local development.
In practice, the idea is riven with flaws. First, the circumstances for which this theoretical arrangement is designed—namely, a collection of small and completely substitutable land parcels with multiple landowners—bears little relation to the characteristics of the actual land market across the country.
Secondly, the idea that auctions will drive down land prices in the absence of any element of compulsion is frankly for the birds. One need only look at Transport for London’s disappointing experience with the development rights auction model to see how the proposed arrangement will fall short in that regard.
Rachael Maskell
Every day, we see an increase of 29 new short-term holiday lets. Therefore, the Government’s step-by-step process will not be sufficient in holiday hotspots, which are targeted by a very aggressive investor market for short-term holiday lets. I thank my hon. Friend, but does he agree that we need to get pace behind this to ensure we protect our communities from the extraction of housing by investors?
Matthew Pennycook
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and she is not the only hon. Member for whom this is an acute problem: I have heard Members say in several debates over the past year that this is a huge problem in their local areas. She will remember that there was a real difference of opinion in Committee about how bold the Government need to be in response to this problem and how quickly they need to act. I urge the Minister to think again about what additional provisions can be put into the Bill to go beyond the registration system.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
In Westminster alone, we have 13,000 short-term let properties, so we are fully aware of the issues. I often advocate licensing schemes, but I think that a registration scheme under new clause 119, which I support, is a good first step. It is important to remember that no two local authorities are the same, and we have to respond to them. Does the shadow Minister agree that this is a good first step? A licensing scheme may be appropriate eventually, but let us go with a registration scheme first.
Matthew Pennycook
I agree and disagree with the hon. Lady. I agree that it is a good first step, and I disagree in the sense that the Government cannot consult for a number of years on what additional measures might be required. We are ultimately talking about local discretion to apply, whether it is use classes or a licensing scheme, but we think that, such is the acute nature of the problem in particular parts of the country, a registration scheme is not enough. We cannot wait until 2024 for additional measures.
Stella Creasy
Does my hon. Friend, like me, share the sense of mysticism that I suspect parents around the country will feel about the fact that the Government consider childcare to be a “non-infrastructure item”? The Minister just said that—I hope she misspoke. Parents recognise that, just as we fund roads so they can drive to work, funding childcare helps them get to work. That is why many local authorities do not do deals to invest in childcare and make sure it and childminders are part of our local economies. That is why we need things such as amendment 2.
Matthew Pennycook
We believe it is essential that the infrastructure levy is designed and implemented in a way that, first and foremost, ensures local authorities deliver the necessary amount of affordable housing and core infrastructure to support the development of their area. For that reason, we raised concerns in Committee about the possibility that the levy could be spent on non-infrastructure items such as services that are wholly unconnected to the impact of development on communities, without those needs having been met. However, as my hon. Friend knows—as any parent knows—childcare is infrastructure. Given the acute pressure on childcare places in many parts of the country, we agree that there is a case for explicitly making reference to childcare facilities in the list of infrastructure in proposed new section 204N so that local authorities are aware that they can use levy proceeds to fund it as part of developing their areas.
There are a number of useful provisions in the Bill that we support, but we fear that any benefits that might flow from them will ultimately be undermined by others that risk causing serious harm, whether it be to already low levels of affordable housing supply, the status and remit of local planning or important environmental protections. If the legislation before us were only an idiosyncratic mix of the good, the half-baked and the bad—a typically Govian curate’s egg, one might say—that would be disappointing enough. What adds to the frustration we feel is the fact that, in a larger sense, it represents a real missed opportunity to enact the kind of planning reform that is required to meet the multiple challenges that we face as a country: to tackle the housing crisis, to respond to the climate emergency, to address our rapidly degrading natural environment, and to better promote health and wellbeing.
We have a chance today to overhaul the Bill in a number of important respects. We have a chance to rectify the aspects of it that are problematic and enable it to address the vital issues on which it is currently silent, and I urge the House to come together to do so.
Several hon. Members rose—
Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateDepartment: Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities
Matthew Pennycook
Main Page: Matthew Pennycook (Labour - Greenwich and Woolwich)Department Debates - View all Matthew Pennycook's debates with the Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities
Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill
Matthew Pennycook ExcerptsTuesday 17th October 2023
(7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Amendments as at 17 October 2023 - (17 Oct 2023)
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
Well, what can one say about that last 20 minutes, apart from that it must have felt far more persuasive when the Minister practised it in the mirror this morning, but I do congratulate her on the birth of her grandson.
I will start by thanking their lordships for the extensive and forensic scrutiny to which they have subjected this complex and demanding piece of legislation. I put on record the appreciation felt on these Benches for the tireless work of our noble Friends, Baroness Hayman of Ullock and Lady Taylor of Stevenage, ably assisted as ever by Ben Wood and the whole Labour Lords team.
This Bill has been with us for some time now. First published in May 2022, it has progressed slowly against the backdrop of significant political and economic turbulence, the responsibility for which lies squarely with the Conservatives. It has survived an unprecedented degree of ministerial churn: three Prime Ministers; four Secretaries of State, albeit one a retread; four Housing and Planning Ministers; and four Levelling Up Ministers. With so many minds on the Government Benches having grappled thoughtfully with the implications of each of the Bill’s many provisions, one might have hoped that it would have been significantly improved and that its worst features would have been substantially mitigated, if not removed altogether. Sadly, despite the addition of scores of new clauses and a large number of new schedules to the extensive number it already contained, the Bill remains not only eclectic but deeply muddled. It is a rag-tag mix of measures—some sensible, but many more ill-considered or downright damaging—that attempt but fail to render coherent a Tory levelling up, devolution and planning agenda that is anything but.
In the eight months that the Bill was considered in the other place, the Government were forced to give way on a variety of fronts. I am glad that, in a range of areas, the arguments that my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) and I made in Committee last year have been partially accepted.
However, although the Government’s concessions have rendered the Bill slightly more palatable, they have not resolved the fact that it still contains a range of measures, from the new infrastructure levy to community land auction arrangements, that are riven with flaws. We regret the fact that Ministers did not reconsider their inclusion entirely. It will now fall to a future Labour Government to halt, review or rescind each of them.
We do not have an opportunity today to attempt, again, to address many of the more problematic parts of the Bill but, as a result of the prodigious efforts of noble Lords in the other place, we have a chance to make a number of important changes that would modestly improve the Bill and, in so doing, enhance outcomes for local communities across the country. It is with that objective in mind that I turn to a selection of the unusually large number of amendments that the other place has sent to us for consideration.
Lords amendments 1 and 10 relate to the levelling-up mission set out in part 1 of the Bill and the distinct, but related, third round of the levelling-up fund. They seek respectively to ensure that the missions and the fund application process are properly integrated and that round 3 of the fund takes place not only in a timely manner but on the basis of a reformed application process. We support both.
The Opposition’s views on the Government’s levelling-up missions are well known, but, if we are to give statutory force to a statement setting such missions for a period of no less than five years, it is right not only that it comes into effect soon after the Bill receives Royal Assent but that it is accompanied by a statement detailing the application process for round 3 of the levelling-up fund, including transparent criteria so that the two can be fully aligned.
Similarly, our criticisms of the levelling-up funding process are a matter of public record, but, if the fund is to be the primary means of delivering priority local infrastructure projects for the foreseeable future, it is right that steps are taken prior to the opening of round 3 to simplify the application process and to reduce the onerous requirements and resources it presently involves.
We recognise that, by tabling an amendment in lieu of Lords amendment 10, the Government have sought to enshrine in the Bill an assurance in respect of round 3 of the levelling-up fund. However, not only is the content of the proposed statement left completely undefined, but the proposed amendment in lieu fails to achieve one of the central objectives sought by their noble Lords, namely that such a statement be published within the same timescale as a statement on the levelling-up missions so that the two processes, which are clearly connected, fully complement each other. For those reasons, we cannot support the Government amendment in lieu and we will support Lords amendment 10, along with Lords amendment 1.
The question of whether the Government’s proposed levelling-up missions are comprehensive enough to reduce inequalities between and within regions has arisen since the White Paper was first published in February 2022. Lords amendments 2 and 4 seek to augment the 12 missions set out in that document by requiring the addition of separate missions relating to child poverty and health disparities. We welcome the Government’s acceptance that addressing the impact of economic and social disparities warrants a greater focus in respect of levelling-up missions and that they have tabled amendments in lieu of Lords amendments 2 and 4 to that end. However, in our view, the requirement that Ministers “must have regard” to these disparities in the preparation and review of all the missions falls some way short of the implications that establishing dedicated new missions on child poverty and health disparities would have for life chances across the country. For that reason, we cannot support the Government amendment in lieu and will support Lords amendments 2 and 4.
We also support Lords amendment 22. We remain firmly of the view that there are circumstances in which virtual or hybrid meetings are necessary or useful, and that their use could help to reduce barriers to public engagement, particularly in relation to the planning process. As we argued in Committee last year, a number of organisations, including the Planning Inspectorate, already enjoy the freedom to offer such meetings as they deem necessary, and there is widespread support for putting local authority remote meeting arrangements on a permanent footing, including from the Local Government Association, Lawyers in Local Government and the Association of Democratic Services Officers. The Government have offered no compelling reason why this amendment should not be incorporated into the Bill, and we therefore urge the House to support it.
As the Minister will know, the establishment of a new tier of national planning policy in the form of national development management policies, and their precise relationship and standing in respect of local development plans, has been a point of contention throughout the Bill’s passage. The Opposition feel strongly that it cannot be right that national policies that will have a far greater impact on local communities than any existing national policy statement and that have significant implications for the status and remit of local planning can be developed without an obligatory and defined public consultation and parliamentary approval process. Lords amendment 44 stipulates such a process, including minimum public consultation requirements and a mechanism for facilitating parliamentary scrutiny based on that which currently applies to designating a national policy statement.
Mrs Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that people deserve to have their voices heard and to decide for themselves who they want to represent them as their police and crime commissioner?
Matthew Pennycook
My hon. Friend is right. As I was about to say, we believe that this change is clearly driven by political expediency and is intended to facilitate the transfer of the PCC functions in the west midlands to its Mayor prior to the elections that will take place in May 2024. This is the latest attempt to achieve that end—a provision enabling the Mayor to expand the boundary of the West Midlands Combined Authority without the consent of the constituent authorities, having been defeated in the other place on 13 July. Lords amendment 273 does not engage with the substantive issue of whether a transfer on this basis is appropriate. All it seeks to do is to delay the point at which the measures contained in clause 59 come into force, so that this not insignificant change can be enacted in a considered manner after the next set of elections take place. The amendment has our support.
Finally, Lords amendment 329, which was tabled by Lord Best, would require local plans to identify the scale and nature of local housing need and to make provision for sufficient social rented housing so that homelessness and the use of temporary accommodation can be ended. The importance of this matter cannot be overstated. As a result of the reduced supply of genuinely affordable homes over the past 13 years, more than 1.2 million households languish on local authority waiting lists; millions of families are trapped in overcrowded or unsuitable properties; and, to our shame as a nation, the number of households in temporary accommodation, many of whom contain young children, surpassed 100,000 for the first time this year. National planning policy is clear that local plans should, as a minimum, provide for objectively assessed needs for housing, but we know that the true extent of local housing need, and in particular the need for social rented housing, is not often reflected in them.
We strongly support the principle that underpins Lords amendment 329: that local planning authorities should be required, rather than encouraged, to properly identify local housing need and plan to meet it. We recognise that the Government have made an important concession with their proposed amendment in lieu of Lords amendment 329, which would ensure that local plans must take account of an assessment of local housing need, including affordable housing need. However, the Government amendment in lieu falls short, in failing to require local planning authorities to plan to accommodate that identified need. For that reason, we are minded to support Lords amendment 329 today, with a view to encouraging the Government to consider whether they can move a little further on this matter.
Rachael Maskell
Having served on the Bill Committee for six months, I have to say to the Minister that I found it really disrespectful that she would not take my intervention; I am here to scrutinise the legislation. I say to my hon. Friend—the future Housing Minister—that I welcome our adoption of these measures to ensure that we get the right tenure, not least because of the housing crisis that I see in my constituency. Let me push him further by asking whether we will accept the principles of Lords amendment 46 on healthy homes and the built environment, because we know that housing is about not just bricks and mortar, but the environments in which people live.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention, and I thank her again, as I did at the time, for the many months of work that she did on the Bill Committee. She is right to raise the point about healthy homes; we fully support the principles of that campaign. We disagree with the Government’s suggestion that the issue is already well addressed, and I gently encourage the Minister to continue the conversations that I believe the Government are having with Lord Crisp and the other proposers of that amendment in the other place.
To conclude, while we welcome a small number of the concessions that the Government have felt able to make to the Bill, we believe that most do not go far enough. This unwieldy and confused piece of legislation is flawed on many levels. We have an opportunity today to make modest but important improvements to it. On that basis, we urge the House to support the many reasonable amendments that the other place has sent to us.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the Father of the House.
Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateDepartment: Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities
Matthew Pennycook
Main Page: Matthew Pennycook (Labour - Greenwich and Woolwich)Department Debates - View all Matthew Pennycook's debates with the Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities
Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill
Matthew Pennycook ExcerptsTuesday 24th October 2023
(6 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Message as at 24 October 2023 - (24 Oct 2023)
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow that characteristically sensible speech from the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous). I put on record our thanks for their lordships’ continued engagement on the Bill and all the work they have done on it over many months. After considering an extensive number of Lords amendments to the Bill last week, just two issues remain for us to debate again. The first is remote local government meetings.
Labour remains firmly of the view that while in-person council meetings should continue to predominate, there are circumstances in which virtual or hybrid local government meetings might be either useful or necessary. We also maintain that permitting their use in certain instances would have a number of additional benefits, not least in helping to reduce barriers to public engagement in the planning process, which is a goal shared across the House. As has been previously noted, an extremely broad range of organisations support change in this area, including the Local Government Association, Lawyers in Local Government, the Association of Democratic Services Officers, the Society of Local Council Clerks and the National Association of Local Councils. Indeed, as the hon. Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith) pointed out during last week’s debate, evidence from NALC suggests that support for it among local councils is overwhelming, with 90% of town and parish councils wanting the ability to hold virtual meetings in some form to widen participation.
As we just heard, it is not just those organisations and authorities and those on the Labour Benches who support greater local discretion in this area. In last weeks’ debate, the right hon. Members for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) and for North Somerset (Dr Fox) and the hon. Members for Buckingham, for Waveney and for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) all expressed support for a degree of flexibility so that councils could enable remote participation in meetings in certain circumstances. No one is arguing that we should require every local government meeting to be virtual or hybrid. Doing so would clearly undermine the principle that members of the public should have suitable opportunities to interact in-person with their local representatives. Instead, the case is being made for a degree of local discretion so that such meetings would be permitted in certain circumstances.
Lords amendment 22B addresses the Government’s understandable concern that permitting councils to hold wholly virtual meetings might have unintended and adverse consequences for local democracy. The amendment would allow Ministers to determine by regulations the range of circumstances in which hybrid meetings could take place. For example, they might choose to enable parish councillors in more remote parts of a given authority area to attend meetings virtually while ensuring that most are still required to be present in person. To take another example, they might choose to allow members of the public—say, people with mobility issues or those with children—to participate actively in planning committees, while councillors would still be required to attend in person. We believe that this is a reasonable and proportionate amendment, and we will support it.
The second issue concerns the planning system’s role in mitigating and adapting to global heating. The Government’s amendment in lieu is noticeably weaker than Lords amendment 45 as it applies only to national development management policies rather than all national policy, planning policy or advice relating to the development or use of land. It also excludes precise statutory definitions of what constitutes mitigation and adaptation. Nevertheless, we welcome that the Government have made a concession on this issue by tabling their amendment.
However, while we welcome the fact that the Government’s amendment in lieu would ensure consideration of climate mitigation and adaptation in the preparation or modification of NDMPs, it would not achieve what Lords amendment 45 would: namely, to establish genuine coherence between the planning system and our country’s climate commitments, not least by requiring local planning authorities to have regard to climate when making decisions on individual planning applications. The planning system in its current form is manifestly failing to play its full part in addressing the climate emergency. Indeed, one might go so far as to argue that it is actively hindering our ability to mitigate and adapt to climate change in myriad different ways.
The Bill is a missed opportunity to fully align the planning system with our climate mitigation and adaptation goals and ensure that new development produces resilient and climate-proofed places. The provisions in the Bill that require local plans to be designed in such a way as to contribute to the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change are welcome, but they are transposed from existing legislation introduced 15 years ago, and, alone, they are not sufficient. The promised related update to the national planning policy framework to ensure that it contributes to climate change mitigation and adaptation as fully as possible is vital, but it will not take place until well after the Bill has received Royal Assent if it materialises at all during what remains of this Parliament.
As we have argued consistently throughout the passage of the Bill, there is a pressing need for clear and unambiguous national policy guidance on climate change, a purposeful statutory framework to align every aspect of the planning system with net zero, and an overarching duty on the Secretary of State, local planning authorities and those involved in neighbourhood plan making to achieve climate change mitigation and adaptation when preparing plans and policies or exercising their planning decision-making functions.
The Climate Change Committee recommended in its 2022 progress report that
“Net zero and climate resilience should be embedded within the planning reforms”
contained in the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill.
As things stand, they have not been. In this week—of all weeks—when we have seen once again the impact on communities across the country of the more frequent extreme weather events that climate change is driving, we should look to improve how the planning system responds to the climate emergency. The Government amendment in lieu is welcome, but it does not go far enough. For that reason, we will support Lords amendment 45.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
I would like to start by thanking the Minister for her involvement in the very long saga that is the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill, which, finally may be drawing to a close. It is good to see the areas of difference between the two Houses reduced.
I appreciate that Lords amendment 22 on councils meeting virtually is a significant issue, as it could set a precedent for other parts of the public sector. I understand the Government’s concerns and why they have resisted it up to now, but I hope there is room for further compromise and at least some flexibility to allow councils to deploy hybrid meetings. If the amendment still goes too far, I hope that Ministers can come up with something, perhaps specifically in the planning context or in at least some circumstances, to make the life of our local councillors a little easier. We must remember that they do a difficult job; they work hard and many are trying to hold down day jobs at the same time. A bit more flexibility for virtual meetings could help to enhance democratic participation.
An amendment that we did not get back from their lordships was on NDMPs. I have a certain amount of regret about that, because I continue to believe that the replacement of local development management policies with a single centralised diktat is the wrong approach. However, I welcome the fact that, thanks to the Government’s amendments in lieu, we now see in the Bill a commitment to consult on NDMPs. That was an important part of the compromise announced last December by the Secretary of State to tackle problems outlined in the amendments package headed by new clause 21, which I tabled. It resulted from concerns felt by many on the Government Benches about problems leading to massive pressure for blocks of flats in the suburbs and housing estates on greenfield and agricultural land in rural areas. Now, we need to see the remainder of that package delivered by the national planning policy framework. Once again, I encourage and urge Ministers to get that published.
We also need to see the new set of planning policy guidance—another document that will be crucial to ensuring that the reforms promised in the planning system deliver real change. Concern remains among Back Benchers about the rush for volume of units at all costs. We all accept the need for new homes and want more homes built, but they need to be the right homes in the right places. I know that you, Mr Deputy Speaker, strongly agree with that.
With that in mind, I can understand the rationale of Lords amendment 45 on climate change mitigation and adaptation. We need to do more to ensure that the developments that come forward for approval are consistent with our net zero goals. I am not necessarily saying that Lords amendment 45 is the right vehicle to deliver that, but if we are to make that huge transition to carbon neutrality, construction and development has an enormous part to play, and significant change needs to be delivered. I hope that the Government will make every effort to ensure that the new NPPF reflects our climate goals, in terms of both mitigation and adaptation.
In particular, as we have heard many times during the debate on the Bill, we must take care in relation to areas prone to flooding since, even if we deliver net zero on time, the climate has already changed to make such episodes more serious and more frequent. I would like to take this opportunity to put on record my great sympathy to anyone who has been affected by the floods of recent days. I hope they are back in their homes soon. I truly understand what a miserable experience it is to be subjected to these climatic episodes.
Returning lastly and briefly to the December compromise announced on Report by the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), I reiterate what I have said a number of times in this House: we need the compromise to be implemented. The issues raised in new clause 21 on excessive targets have not gone away. Back-Bench concern has not gone away. We are all determined to defend our constituencies from overdevelopment. We believe it is vital to shift the focus of home building to big urban city sites like Old Oak Common, Beckton and central Manchester. The Docklands 2.0 approach outlined by the Secretary of State in his July speech and in his long-term plan for housing reflects our climate commitments by situating people close to jobs, services and public transport systems. It helps to take the pressure off suburban and rural areas, protecting green spaces and the green belt, and supports our ambitions for nature recovery. So, please, let us make sure that that change really happens.