Lords Grand Committee
Tuesday 13th October 2026
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
(began 2 weeks, 2 days ago)
Watch LiveSkip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
16:58
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Social housing. So this is something close to my committee that I am a councillor, which for a local authority, which Owen Hart. So first of all, on the issue about the social housing regulations for hazards, the extension of Grub's law. Totally agree with what is being done. And Awaabs law has already ensured that mould and damp within social housing is being treated appropriately.
So that is a positive and extending it in the way that is proposed in the regulations is something with which we is what we will support. So I do have some questions. So the first one is this. The minister referenced the reasonable landlord. Now then a definition of reasonable would be helpful. One person's landlord's reasonable may not be the tenant's reasonable. And that often is the case in my experience in my local authority work.
So let's see if we can. Have a bit of clarity around that. Secondly is to just emphasize one of the hazards that has been listed, which is that of the regulation of excess heat and excess cold. So during the summer, obviously it was even in Yorkshire, it was quite warm. And those properties, it was in properties built in the 70s. So with limited sort of insulation and, and so on, which were for housing with additional care.
They became extremely hot. And because of risks of opening ground floor windows where vulnerable tenants were lived in the ground floor accommodation. It was difficult to keep those open, especially at night. So the cost of. Putting in, say, air conditioning or something is going to be fairly significant. So when I looked at the impact assessment, there wasn't much in relation to the cost of issue dealing with issues such as that.
That's the first one. The second issue is more broad, which is that the local housing allowance on which, as a noble Lord, the minister will understand . Many tenants in social housing rely. So that has been frozen for 2 or 3 years. Is it. It was first frozen in 24 and is not going to be unfrozen. Can you unfreeze until 27 at the earliest? Now that has a significant impact on the revenue, income from rents or housing allowance for the landlord.
And that means we're putting additional costs on the social landlord, be it local authority or. Housing associations. Meanwhile, freezing the local housing allowance. So, I mean, I do think that needs some thought as to how those that you're going to square that off, because I know in my own local authority, a lot of consideration is already going being made into adding to a to the rent of social tenants in our, in our local housing to pay for some of the side issues like, you know, trimming hedges, doing the grass, that sort of stuff.
And that is an additional cost sometimes on tenants who cannot afford it because they qualify for housing benefit. So I really do want to understand that. The other point I want to to two others really is one is. They talked about hygiene standards. I'm quite sure hygiene standards meant. So it might be good to clarify that. But where does the responsibility lie when tenants behave in a way which creates some of these hazards? Hygiene hazard may be one of them, as I know in my own town where a tenant is piling up rubbish in their, I mean literally piling up rubbish to the level of the ground floor windows.
And it is quite difficult to deal with that to the detriment, of course, not only of the people who live there, but also their neighbours. So what happens then when it's a tenant responsibility or irresponsibility or lack His ability or lack of being able to be responsible.
So that is a positive and extending it in the way that is proposed in the regulations is something with which we is what we will support. So I do have some questions. So the first one is this. The minister referenced the reasonable landlord. Now then a definition of reasonable would be helpful. One person's landlord's reasonable may not be the tenant's reasonable. And that often is the case in my experience in my local authority work.
So let's see if we can. Have a bit of clarity around that. Secondly is to just emphasize one of the hazards that has been listed, which is that of the regulation of excess heat and excess cold. So during the summer, obviously it was even in Yorkshire, it was quite warm. And those properties, it was in properties built in the 70s. So with limited sort of insulation and, and so on, which were for housing with additional care.
They became extremely hot. And because of risks of opening ground floor windows where vulnerable tenants were lived in the ground floor accommodation. It was difficult to keep those open, especially at night. So the cost of. Putting in, say, air conditioning or something is going to be fairly significant. So when I looked at the impact assessment, there wasn't much in relation to the cost of issue dealing with issues such as that.
That's the first one. The second issue is more broad, which is that the local housing allowance on which, as a noble Lord, the minister will understand . Many tenants in social housing rely. So that has been frozen for 2 or 3 years. Is it. It was first frozen in 24 and is not going to be unfrozen. Can you unfreeze until 27 at the earliest? Now that has a significant impact on the revenue, income from rents or housing allowance for the landlord.
And that means we're putting additional costs on the social landlord, be it local authority or. Housing associations. Meanwhile, freezing the local housing allowance. So, I mean, I do think that needs some thought as to how those that you're going to square that off, because I know in my own local authority, a lot of consideration is already going being made into adding to a to the rent of social tenants in our, in our local housing to pay for some of the side issues like, you know, trimming hedges, doing the grass, that sort of stuff.
And that is an additional cost sometimes on tenants who cannot afford it because they qualify for housing benefit. So I really do want to understand that. The other point I want to to two others really is one is. They talked about hygiene standards. I'm quite sure hygiene standards meant. So it might be good to clarify that. But where does the responsibility lie when tenants behave in a way which creates some of these hazards? Hygiene hazard may be one of them, as I know in my own town where a tenant is piling up rubbish in their, I mean literally piling up rubbish to the level of the ground floor windows.
And it is quite difficult to deal with that to the detriment, of course, not only of the people who live there, but also their neighbours. So what happens then when it's a tenant responsibility or irresponsibility or lack His ability or lack of being able to be responsible.
17:14
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
That have been us that I will try my best to address. And if I can know that we've got cross party and cross house. Support for all this and see some valid questions that aren't. Then I've got no problem with writing to the to the noble Lords, and at all these. The one issue. And it. Just to go through them one by one. Overheating was the one that you mentioned there.
Awaabs law does not apply to overheating, which is due solely to outside temperatures being particularly high. Through climate change, it is about ensuring landlords take prompt action where a defect or deficiency in a home is creating a serious excess heat hazard for a tenant, for example, this could include a window that can't be opened, defective ventilation or a fault with a heating system that is causing excessive indoor temperatures. And I think that's fair because outside temperatures, you can't blame the the landlords for climate change, I would have thought.
But these issues, which are practical issues, is something that the the the landlord can address. Now, that doesn't mean landlords should address heat as it is. There still have duties to keep home safe. The decent homes standard requires homes to provide a reasonable degree of thermal comfort, while minimum energy efficiency standards will help improve the thermal performance of homes and can reduce overheating risks when installed properly. We are also developing guidance for landlords and practical steps to manage overheating and other temperature related hazards.
So these regulations are about what practical things like can you open the window? Is the boiler working? You know, that's that's that's where it's basically there to affect. A big issue that both the noble Lord and the Baroness mentioned was, what if the tenant doesn't allow access? A landlord is not in breach of their duty to comply with the remedial notice served under the regulations. If they can show they have taken all reasonable steps to comply, a landlord could show reasonable steps by keeping copies of all communications with their tenants and with electricians as they try to arrange the work, including any replies they have had.
Landlords may also want to provide other evidence they have taken. They have that they have. They have. The installation is in good condition while they attempt to arrange work. The government is aware of growing concerns regarding the legal framework surrounding access to social housing, and ministers and officials are giving careful consideration to the matter and are working closely with residents, providers and other experts to examine whether further clarification is necessary and will update the House as that develops.
On hygiene, I think.
Awaabs law does not apply to overheating, which is due solely to outside temperatures being particularly high. Through climate change, it is about ensuring landlords take prompt action where a defect or deficiency in a home is creating a serious excess heat hazard for a tenant, for example, this could include a window that can't be opened, defective ventilation or a fault with a heating system that is causing excessive indoor temperatures. And I think that's fair because outside temperatures, you can't blame the the landlords for climate change, I would have thought.
But these issues, which are practical issues, is something that the the the landlord can address. Now, that doesn't mean landlords should address heat as it is. There still have duties to keep home safe. The decent homes standard requires homes to provide a reasonable degree of thermal comfort, while minimum energy efficiency standards will help improve the thermal performance of homes and can reduce overheating risks when installed properly. We are also developing guidance for landlords and practical steps to manage overheating and other temperature related hazards.
So these regulations are about what practical things like can you open the window? Is the boiler working? You know, that's that's that's where it's basically there to affect. A big issue that both the noble Lord and the Baroness mentioned was, what if the tenant doesn't allow access? A landlord is not in breach of their duty to comply with the remedial notice served under the regulations. If they can show they have taken all reasonable steps to comply, a landlord could show reasonable steps by keeping copies of all communications with their tenants and with electricians as they try to arrange the work, including any replies they have had.
Landlords may also want to provide other evidence they have taken. They have that they have. They have. The installation is in good condition while they attempt to arrange work. The government is aware of growing concerns regarding the legal framework surrounding access to social housing, and ministers and officials are giving careful consideration to the matter and are working closely with residents, providers and other experts to examine whether further clarification is necessary and will update the House as that develops.
On hygiene, I think.
17:16
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I'm sorry to interrupt, because there is an issue that I'm quite concerned about, so particularly about gas checks, actually. So if if the tenant refuses access and and a gas appliance, a fire or a boiler has not been serviced, say, for five years and causes a fire or an explosion, whose responsibility would it be? Because what it's doing is putting at risk other tenants who live round and about, especially if it's in a a block of flats.
That's that's the concern I have. And I wonder if the minister could just say a bit sorry, because you maybe don't know. But if you could write to me about what action the government intends to take about access to tenants homes to do these essential checks.
That's that's the concern I have. And I wonder if the minister could just say a bit sorry, because you maybe don't know. But if you could write to me about what action the government intends to take about access to tenants homes to do these essential checks.
17:17
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I mean, as I've said, the government is well aware of these issues, and they are looking at concerns regarding the legal framework. And what I'll do is write to the. Thank you, the Baroness, about exactly where the government is and all this, and what the legal position is and what we're looking at. Other issues, hygiene. Sorry.
17:18
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
I just want to follow up on that. It does appear the government is coming forward with some very strong powers as regards to HMRC and inspection for things like mansion tax and yet something that is about life and death. We seem to be a little bit skirting around the houses. Surely life and death is more important?
17:18
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Certainly is. That's why we we make ensure that we are going to address the issue. And what I will also do is write to the noble Lord about exactly where we are on the legal, the legal framework, and in developing it. Hygiene was another issue. It's about a deficiency in the property that makes it hard to keep clean, not the tenants behaviour.
17:18
17:18
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
And the reasonable landlord, both noble Lord and Baroness, asked this question. The reasonable landlord test is an objective test. What would a notional, reasonable landlord do as the landlord equivalent of the man on the Clapham omnibus? It's a legal concept that can be applied by the court. It's not relevant what a landlord or tenant thinks is reasonable to do, but what the national reasonable landlords, the notional, reasonable landlords do.
In the circumstances. Good
In the circumstances. Good
17:19
17:19
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
So that is the definition of it. And also there's the cost element that I think the noble Lord Jameson mentioned. We've published a final stage impact assessment for phase one of Webb's Law. We have previously published a final stage impact assessment. Sorry, we've updated the policy in light of consultation feedback from both the sector and tenants. We have assessed that costs are being kept to a reasonable level whilst delivering necessary impacts for tenants.
Social landlords that will incur the greatest costs are those not currently meeting their obligations regarding hazards and deficiency, our estimate is that the total cost of the sector of our proposals will be £146 million over ten years for the first phase, which is obviously the introduction that that was started under the previous government. And then for the second phase, that figure, over ten years or 12 years, is going to be something in the region of £190 million.
The duty to make repairs to reported hazards is not a new burden on landlords , and the costs associated with the investigation and repair timescales are likely to be to be a result of additional staffing, familiarisation costs, etc. on the 2 or 3 issues that were raised. Fridges.
Social landlords that will incur the greatest costs are those not currently meeting their obligations regarding hazards and deficiency, our estimate is that the total cost of the sector of our proposals will be £146 million over ten years for the first phase, which is obviously the introduction that that was started under the previous government. And then for the second phase, that figure, over ten years or 12 years, is going to be something in the region of £190 million.
The duty to make repairs to reported hazards is not a new burden on landlords , and the costs associated with the investigation and repair timescales are likely to be to be a result of additional staffing, familiarisation costs, etc. on the 2 or 3 issues that were raised. Fridges.
17:21
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Sorry to to be finicky, so I just want to understand because I did read through the impact assessment and the point I was trying to make is, you're right, familiarization trial prep, postage. These are essentially administrative costs of the process. It does go further on to talk about non-monetary costs, because they were impossible to assess. I am making an assumption here, and it may be wrong. As a result of this, we are expanding the scope of what needs to be done.
I'm not saying it doesn't need to be done, but clearly if you are doing more, that has a cost. And so I'm just trying to get an idea. Has government looked at those further costs? Because if all we're going to do is do a lot of admin and not do any actual stuff that actually improves the accommodation that someone's living in, I would ask the question why we're doing it, and I'm pretty sure we are going to be doing various changes or not.
We, the the landlords will be making various changes to properties, make them better, but that does have a cost. And I want to understand where the government is going to look at that cost. Going to come back with that cost at a later stage, just so that the House has a better understanding. And finally, before I sit down, I need to apologise to the committee because I also forgot to mention that I am a councillor, Central Bedfordshire, and we also have an HRA, so apologies for that.
I'm not saying it doesn't need to be done, but clearly if you are doing more, that has a cost. And so I'm just trying to get an idea. Has government looked at those further costs? Because if all we're going to do is do a lot of admin and not do any actual stuff that actually improves the accommodation that someone's living in, I would ask the question why we're doing it, and I'm pretty sure we are going to be doing various changes or not.
We, the the landlords will be making various changes to properties, make them better, but that does have a cost. And I want to understand where the government is going to look at that cost. Going to come back with that cost at a later stage, just so that the House has a better understanding. And finally, before I sit down, I need to apologise to the committee because I also forgot to mention that I am a councillor, Central Bedfordshire, and we also have an HRA, so apologies for that.
17:22
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I think. I think we've covered the the information as far as the figures are concerned. If there is any other figures that we've come across, then surely we can. I can, you know, pass them on to the, to the, to the, to the noble Lord. But obviously this is just part of a wider regulatory framework, which is to help to keep people in the social housing. Safe. And obviously, if these are complied with, then the extra additional cost will be kept to a will be kept to a minimum.
I would have thought that means that the social social landlords are doing what they should be doing . Anyway. There's two other issues. One is on fridges . Due to the variety of electrical appliances used in rented homes, whether or not they are provided by landlords and the different type of tenancy. One single mandated approach is not viable or practical. And we still recommend, however, that everyone regularly carries out appliance testing on any electrical appliances.
And what. What if issues caused. In the home, the results of the tenants and not of the landlord? The government is completely clear that it is unacceptable for social landlords to assume that a hazard such as damp and mould or pesticides, is based on a tenant's lifestyle. It is unavoidable that everyday tasks such as cooking, bathing, washing and drying laundry will contribute to the production of indoor moisture. These activities are therefore unlikely to constitute a breach of contract on the part of the tenant, and should not be a reason not to take action through Awaabs law.
It is therefore rightly the responsibility of landlords to identify and address underlying causes such as structural issues, repairs, inadequate ventilation. Landlords should, of course, continue working with tenants to make reasonable adjustments to their behaviour, if appropriate, to reduce their risks. To conclude the support these draft regulations have received from the sector is heartening, and I recognise the role landlords play in providing safe, warm and secure homes for millions of people across the country. It is, however, not in dispute that far too many tenants still live in homes that are not well managed or maintained, and often struggle to secure adequate redress.
We are taking action today to redress to further address this indefensible situation, by ensuring that Awaabs Law phase two is introduced and extended to a wider range of significant hazards in social rented homes, including excessive cold and heat, and are addressed within fixed timescales, and that all landlords have to meet standards and standards of electricity safety. And we will drive up the safety and quality of social homes. And I beg to move. Motions.
The Grand. Committee
I would have thought that means that the social social landlords are doing what they should be doing . Anyway. There's two other issues. One is on fridges . Due to the variety of electrical appliances used in rented homes, whether or not they are provided by landlords and the different type of tenancy. One single mandated approach is not viable or practical. And we still recommend, however, that everyone regularly carries out appliance testing on any electrical appliances.
And what. What if issues caused. In the home, the results of the tenants and not of the landlord? The government is completely clear that it is unacceptable for social landlords to assume that a hazard such as damp and mould or pesticides, is based on a tenant's lifestyle. It is unavoidable that everyday tasks such as cooking, bathing, washing and drying laundry will contribute to the production of indoor moisture. These activities are therefore unlikely to constitute a breach of contract on the part of the tenant, and should not be a reason not to take action through Awaabs law.
It is therefore rightly the responsibility of landlords to identify and address underlying causes such as structural issues, repairs, inadequate ventilation. Landlords should, of course, continue working with tenants to make reasonable adjustments to their behaviour, if appropriate, to reduce their risks. To conclude the support these draft regulations have received from the sector is heartening, and I recognise the role landlords play in providing safe, warm and secure homes for millions of people across the country. It is, however, not in dispute that far too many tenants still live in homes that are not well managed or maintained, and often struggle to secure adequate redress.
We are taking action today to redress to further address this indefensible situation, by ensuring that Awaabs Law phase two is introduced and extended to a wider range of significant hazards in social rented homes, including excessive cold and heat, and are addressed within fixed timescales, and that all landlords have to meet standards and standards of electricity safety. And we will drive up the safety and quality of social homes. And I beg to move. Motions.
The Grand. Committee
17:25
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
has considered this instrument content. content which are not content. The contents have it. We have to dispose of the next item as well. Hazards and social housing prescribed requirements England Amendment Regulations 2026. Lord Wilson said she would move formally, formally, formally. The question is that the question is the committee has considered this instrument as soon as opinion content, not content. The contents have it. That brings us on to the next item of business.
Do we need to take a moment to rearrange, or are we all in our places.
Do we need to take a moment to rearrange, or are we all in our places.
17:26
17:26
17:26
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
My Lords, the committee is to consider the draft town and country planning fees for applications deemed, applications, requests and site visits. England Amendment and Transitional Provision Regulations 2026. These regulations were laid before the House and the 16th of June and following minor corrections relayed on the 1st of September. If Parliament approves, the regulations will come into force on December the 8th. I will start by providing some context and background to these regulations.
A well-functioning planning system is essential to delivering the homes, infrastructure and economic growth that this country needs. Local planning authorities sit at the heart of that system. They make decisions on the development of our towns, cities and communities. But for many years planning departments have been operating with insufficient resources. There remains a significant gap between the income generated through planning application fees and the cost of providing planning application services .
That underfunding places, pressure on local planning authorities ability to recruit and retain skilled staff, invest in modern systems and deliver timely decisions. These regulations address that challenge by providing local planning authorities with an immediate increase in fee fee income, by enabling authorities to recover a greater proportion of their costs. This will help strengthen capacity and capability across planning services, supporting more efficient and responsive decision making for applicants and communities alike. These regulations also form part of a broader programme of planning reform through the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, parliamentary Parliament provided powers that will enable local planning authorities, subject to appropriate safeguards, to set or vary planning fee fees locally.
The government intends to bring forward regulations to implement those powers later this year. These regulations provide an immediate boost in resourcing for local planning authorities and a robust national baseline from which future local fee setting powers will operate. We consulted on increasing planning fees between March and June 2026. There was broad support across the sector for increasing fees, provided that the income is used to improve the quality, capacity and performance of planning services.
Developer representatives include . The Home Builders Federation. I've emphasized that under-resourced planning departments are a significant barrier to building housing delivery, and have called for greater planning capacity and performance. The government expects local planning authorities to reinvest this income in their planning application services, helping to deliver those performance improvements and support a more effective planning system. Turning briefly to the details, the regulations make four principal changes. First, they establish a revised set of national fees, which we refer to as a national fee schedule, by increasing all existing fees payable to local planning authorities by varying amounts, to achieve up to approximately 90% recovery of estimated costs.
These increases are informed by evidence gathered through a benchmarking exercise undertaken by the Local Government Association and the Planning Advisory Service. That work showed that every application category currently operates below cost recovery, with funding gaps ranging from around 18% to more than 60%, increasing all fees. Up to approximately 90% of estimated costs will provide a meaningful and immediate boost for local planning authorities. We are not increasing fees to 100% of estimated costs, as this would risk over recovery for some authorities.
We also want to incentivise local planning authorities to make efficiency gains through process and service enhancements. Secondly, the regulations simplify and modernize a number of fee categories, including removing some existing baseline fees for larger developments. These changes are intended to make the fee regime clearer and easier to navigate. Thirdly, the regulations introduce a standard fee of £310 for prior approval applications that currently attract no fee. Prior approval applications require local planning authorities to devote time and resources to their assessment and determination, and it is therefore appropriate that applicants make a contribution towards those costs as part of that third change, the regulations also enable a fee to apply to prior approval applications relating to larger electricity substations.
The statutory instrument introducing these changes was laid in Parliament on the 30th of September and comes into effect on the 21st of October. Finally, the regulations correct an omission in the existing index indexation provisions. This amendment ensures that mixed used out outline applications fees are subject to annual inflationary increases in the same way as all other planning application fees. In summary, these regulations are an important step towards a better resourced and more effective planning system.
They will provide local planning authorities with an immediate increase in funding, help strengthen planning capacity and capability, and ensure the foundation for future local fees. Setting powers together, these reforms will support faster, more reliable planning services that are better able to deliver the homes, infrastructure and economic growth that our country needs. I beg to move. Yeah. Question. Is it
A well-functioning planning system is essential to delivering the homes, infrastructure and economic growth that this country needs. Local planning authorities sit at the heart of that system. They make decisions on the development of our towns, cities and communities. But for many years planning departments have been operating with insufficient resources. There remains a significant gap between the income generated through planning application fees and the cost of providing planning application services .
That underfunding places, pressure on local planning authorities ability to recruit and retain skilled staff, invest in modern systems and deliver timely decisions. These regulations address that challenge by providing local planning authorities with an immediate increase in fee fee income, by enabling authorities to recover a greater proportion of their costs. This will help strengthen capacity and capability across planning services, supporting more efficient and responsive decision making for applicants and communities alike. These regulations also form part of a broader programme of planning reform through the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, parliamentary Parliament provided powers that will enable local planning authorities, subject to appropriate safeguards, to set or vary planning fee fees locally.
The government intends to bring forward regulations to implement those powers later this year. These regulations provide an immediate boost in resourcing for local planning authorities and a robust national baseline from which future local fee setting powers will operate. We consulted on increasing planning fees between March and June 2026. There was broad support across the sector for increasing fees, provided that the income is used to improve the quality, capacity and performance of planning services.
Developer representatives include . The Home Builders Federation. I've emphasized that under-resourced planning departments are a significant barrier to building housing delivery, and have called for greater planning capacity and performance. The government expects local planning authorities to reinvest this income in their planning application services, helping to deliver those performance improvements and support a more effective planning system. Turning briefly to the details, the regulations make four principal changes. First, they establish a revised set of national fees, which we refer to as a national fee schedule, by increasing all existing fees payable to local planning authorities by varying amounts, to achieve up to approximately 90% recovery of estimated costs.
These increases are informed by evidence gathered through a benchmarking exercise undertaken by the Local Government Association and the Planning Advisory Service. That work showed that every application category currently operates below cost recovery, with funding gaps ranging from around 18% to more than 60%, increasing all fees. Up to approximately 90% of estimated costs will provide a meaningful and immediate boost for local planning authorities. We are not increasing fees to 100% of estimated costs, as this would risk over recovery for some authorities.
We also want to incentivise local planning authorities to make efficiency gains through process and service enhancements. Secondly, the regulations simplify and modernize a number of fee categories, including removing some existing baseline fees for larger developments. These changes are intended to make the fee regime clearer and easier to navigate. Thirdly, the regulations introduce a standard fee of £310 for prior approval applications that currently attract no fee. Prior approval applications require local planning authorities to devote time and resources to their assessment and determination, and it is therefore appropriate that applicants make a contribution towards those costs as part of that third change, the regulations also enable a fee to apply to prior approval applications relating to larger electricity substations.
The statutory instrument introducing these changes was laid in Parliament on the 30th of September and comes into effect on the 21st of October. Finally, the regulations correct an omission in the existing index indexation provisions. This amendment ensures that mixed used out outline applications fees are subject to annual inflationary increases in the same way as all other planning application fees. In summary, these regulations are an important step towards a better resourced and more effective planning system.
They will provide local planning authorities with an immediate increase in funding, help strengthen planning capacity and capability, and ensure the foundation for future local fees. Setting powers together, these reforms will support faster, more reliable planning services that are better able to deliver the homes, infrastructure and economic growth that our country needs. I beg to move. Yeah. Question. Is it
17:32
17:32
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
My Lords, I wish to rise briefly. This is just another step in the nationalisation of planning. We've seen it well in two weeks time, the national scheme of delegation is going to take planning further away from the people it affects the most. Only last week, in my own ward, I am a councillor in South Norfolk. I was asked by a resident to go and look at a barn. The delegated scheme of report said it was inconsequential.
There would be no overshadowing because the building was only two storeys high, right next door, on the southern side of an existing dwelling house. The proprietor of that dwelling house is horrified because the barn is ten metres high. It is the size of a warehouse, overshadowing completely that person's point. Now, I don't want to get into the whys and wherefores and negotiate this particular complaint, but it demonstrates that this taking power away from local councillors and having an excessive trust in the scheme of delegation is making planning worse.
And as I look through this draft regulation, I see there are increases in the charges between 20 and 30%. And that's quite a burden. On top of the fees from the Building Safety Act, from the Community Infrastructure Levy, new charges from the Mayoral community infrastructure levy, new taxes from the 1st of January on steel and cement, which are going to devastate increase the cost of building, rather for the small builders. And that's on top of the new fees announced by the Edps under the Planning and Infrastructure Act for Nutrient Neutrality and biodiversity net gain.
So whilst this regulation looks at planning fees in isolation, what it's not doing is taking into account the enormous cumulative increase in the burden faced for by developers whose costs have gone up by 40%, while house prices in real terms are down by 20% over ten years. But I don't think those people in building or even applicants for applying in a listed building or in a conservation, for example, for a certificate of lawful use, would mind if there wasn't the other side .
Because 90% cost recovery seems like a good thing, but it ignores the increasing use of pre-application fees and pre-consultation advice, whereby applicants are encouraged to go into and speak to planning officers on a chargeable basis beforehand. And I think that was a good idea to begin with, but it's just become just another profit centre, with generic advice being given to applicants with no certainty and certainly no reliability to use the points of the noble Lord, the minister, in helping people to get it right first time.
So what I think we see here is , in and of itself, relatively modest increases in planning fees, but it's adding to the total burden of development, additional layers, more complexity, not less. And I would say that it makes the government's task of building 1.5 million homes in this Parliament a target they are missing already by a country mile. Even harder. I think we would have had more sympathy.
Well, I certainly would have had more sympathy if we could have said, you know, let's have a greater certainty. Let's make the system easier to navigate. But let's say it in the in the context of the entire fee load, including building safety, CIL and all those other points I've made than just having this one, which is just chipping away once more at the viability, the commercial viability of making, of building the homes our nation needs.
There would be no overshadowing because the building was only two storeys high, right next door, on the southern side of an existing dwelling house. The proprietor of that dwelling house is horrified because the barn is ten metres high. It is the size of a warehouse, overshadowing completely that person's point. Now, I don't want to get into the whys and wherefores and negotiate this particular complaint, but it demonstrates that this taking power away from local councillors and having an excessive trust in the scheme of delegation is making planning worse.
And as I look through this draft regulation, I see there are increases in the charges between 20 and 30%. And that's quite a burden. On top of the fees from the Building Safety Act, from the Community Infrastructure Levy, new charges from the Mayoral community infrastructure levy, new taxes from the 1st of January on steel and cement, which are going to devastate increase the cost of building, rather for the small builders. And that's on top of the new fees announced by the Edps under the Planning and Infrastructure Act for Nutrient Neutrality and biodiversity net gain.
So whilst this regulation looks at planning fees in isolation, what it's not doing is taking into account the enormous cumulative increase in the burden faced for by developers whose costs have gone up by 40%, while house prices in real terms are down by 20% over ten years. But I don't think those people in building or even applicants for applying in a listed building or in a conservation, for example, for a certificate of lawful use, would mind if there wasn't the other side .
Because 90% cost recovery seems like a good thing, but it ignores the increasing use of pre-application fees and pre-consultation advice, whereby applicants are encouraged to go into and speak to planning officers on a chargeable basis beforehand. And I think that was a good idea to begin with, but it's just become just another profit centre, with generic advice being given to applicants with no certainty and certainly no reliability to use the points of the noble Lord, the minister, in helping people to get it right first time.
So what I think we see here is , in and of itself, relatively modest increases in planning fees, but it's adding to the total burden of development, additional layers, more complexity, not less. And I would say that it makes the government's task of building 1.5 million homes in this Parliament a target they are missing already by a country mile. Even harder. I think we would have had more sympathy.
Well, I certainly would have had more sympathy if we could have said, you know, let's have a greater certainty. Let's make the system easier to navigate. But let's say it in the in the context of the entire fee load, including building safety, CIL and all those other points I've made than just having this one, which is just chipping away once more at the viability, the commercial viability of making, of building the homes our nation needs.
17:36
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Well, I don't want to go into back into a debate on the Planning Infrastructure bill act now as it is, I remind the committee that I am a councillor with an interest in planning. As it happens, and. We Liberal Democrats do not take the view of the noble Lord Fuller, that regulation is to be swept away and to make it less costly for housebuilders, because we, I hope, learnt the lesson where regulations were swept away or ignored led to 72 people dying, and I think we just always ought to have that at the forefront of our minds.
17:37
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
I might. I just ask the noble lady. Just to clarify, I wasn't calling for regulations to be swept away. I was just saying, after those costs of those regulations to be contained so that they did not actually become such a burden on the viability of schemes, that actually nothing gets done because collectively and cumulatively, we're not getting the homes built this nation needs. And it's because of the policy inflation and the cost inflation, regulatory burdens.
The Home Builders Federation in the last week has said that additional regulatory costs of building a home have added £38,000 in the last six years, and for flats, it's a further £22,000 over and above that. At some stage we're going to have to call a stop to this inflation or absolutely nothing will get built at all. But that doesn't mean holding back on regulation. It just means constraining the cost.
The Home Builders Federation in the last week has said that additional regulatory costs of building a home have added £38,000 in the last six years, and for flats, it's a further £22,000 over and above that. At some stage we're going to have to call a stop to this inflation or absolutely nothing will get built at all. But that doesn't mean holding back on regulation. It just means constraining the cost.
17:38
17:38
17:38
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
So. On the one hand, the noble Lord Fuller decries centralisation of planning. So do I, but wants to have regulations without them costing anything and that at all, that that is the conundrum. That is for those who always saying, let's get rid of red tape, never, ever tell us that which ones are going to sweep away and what will be the cost on people when they do so. I 90% of let's go back to what it's about planning fees.
So 90% of the cost of the planning service, because it's going to provide an incentive to planning services, to digitise and to streamline their processes. What, what what about those planning services where that has already taken place? And we'll find it really difficult to find that extra 10% saving, which is what is being proposed here. And I do think, well, I would welcome the the regulations to enable planning services to have a have more variation in planning fees within strict limits, because.
The table provided is fine as it is, but doesn't. When it gets to very large planning applications, probably fails to reflect the cost of planning applications. Very large commercial development, for instance, would be one. So that's one comment. The second is that the noble Lord Fowler, where I did agree with him, was on pre-application fees. I, as a local councillor, are attends pre-application discussions with developers and they do take planning officers time to consider an outline an outline case brought by a developer.
So a pre-application fee. Would be, I think, appropriate. Yeah. I think that ought to be some consideration of it would be would I think, be valuable whether or not then that was deducted from a final fee, but having some sort of pre up fee I think would be good. The prior approval fee I agree with that is I'm glad that has been introduced. And just a final point is on this centralisation of of planning.
And the government's argument is, which I partly understand is about making it more consistent across the country. What what I would welcome is for local authorities to be required to, to create a and agree a local plan and local Plan policies, because that is where changes can be made, such as not having a ten meter barn within. 1.5m distance of a. That's where you could do it.
And so it does seem to me the government's missing a trick here about not requiring local plans to be. A requirement of every local authority, every local planning authority. Otherwise, give us 100%, not 90.
So 90% of the cost of the planning service, because it's going to provide an incentive to planning services, to digitise and to streamline their processes. What, what what about those planning services where that has already taken place? And we'll find it really difficult to find that extra 10% saving, which is what is being proposed here. And I do think, well, I would welcome the the regulations to enable planning services to have a have more variation in planning fees within strict limits, because.
The table provided is fine as it is, but doesn't. When it gets to very large planning applications, probably fails to reflect the cost of planning applications. Very large commercial development, for instance, would be one. So that's one comment. The second is that the noble Lord Fowler, where I did agree with him, was on pre-application fees. I, as a local councillor, are attends pre-application discussions with developers and they do take planning officers time to consider an outline an outline case brought by a developer.
So a pre-application fee. Would be, I think, appropriate. Yeah. I think that ought to be some consideration of it would be would I think, be valuable whether or not then that was deducted from a final fee, but having some sort of pre up fee I think would be good. The prior approval fee I agree with that is I'm glad that has been introduced. And just a final point is on this centralisation of of planning.
And the government's argument is, which I partly understand is about making it more consistent across the country. What what I would welcome is for local authorities to be required to, to create a and agree a local plan and local Plan policies, because that is where changes can be made, such as not having a ten meter barn within. 1.5m distance of a. That's where you could do it.
And so it does seem to me the government's missing a trick here about not requiring local plans to be. A requirement of every local authority, every local planning authority. Otherwise, give us 100%, not 90.
17:42
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Sounds like an exam. My Lords. I thank the noble Lord, the Minister, for bringing forward these regulations for scrutiny and for my noble friend Lord Fuller, for his comments as ever stealing a little bit of my thunder, and Baroness Pinnock, who has ever. I agree with on some things and not on some others. This I ultimately increases planning fees, and I understand that the aim of the policy is to allow authorities to recover more money so they can provide a better planning service and deliver planning applications more swiftly.
Now we welcome a simplification of the fee categories and the improvements to the planning system performance. But we do have concerns that those increased costs will impact developers and therefore, ultimately, the cost of building a home and the price that someone will have to pay for a home. Or, as Lord Fuller suggested, not getting built. We believe the cost to the planning system overall needs to come down. Now.
The government seems to be going about this the wrong way and a system becomes too cumbersome, complex and too difficult. You don't charge higher fees, you fix the system. We need a system that is simpler, more consistent, more coherent, more proportionate and speedier. That would also be better for all parties both the developers, the local homeowners. They would know where they stood and we wouldn't get such a complex system and it would be cheaper.
And it's not only developers I've spoken to who would be in favour of a simpler, more consistent, more coherent system. Several of the planning officers I speak to have complained that the increasing complexity of the system, the need for more reports and so forth , makes their job more of a processing agent rather than a planner, which is what they were trained to do and where they add most value. Now, as Lord Fuller raised, the government continues to layer costs on building.
Now, the sums are not insignificant even for this 144 million per year, according to the impact assessment. Now, if you applied that just to the government's target, the slim chance target of 300,000 homes per year, that's around about £500 a home. Now, I know it doesn't just apply to it. I use it purely for illustrative purposes. So is it surprising that someone like Taylor Wimpey has said, a major housing developer, that it is not intending to build any more homes in London, its current projects are completed.
The chief executive has said baseline viability is, I think, fundamentally broken in London, the reward for undertaking what is a very high risk form of development in London has just evaporated. The government's housing target requires 88,000 houses a year to be built in London, with a national target for 1.5 million homes over the course of this parliament. Yet estimates indicate that the cost of building housing is highest in London, and in many instances, if someone has to comply with all the regulations, it is simply not viable at the prices that people can afford to pay in London.
Can the noble Lord, the minister, explain what further policy changes the government is intending to make to improve the economic viability of building those much needed homes in London? Now, Baroness Pinnock fairly raised the question of the importance of regulation and the fact that we genuinely do need regulation and we do, to ensure safety, such as at Grenfell. The problem is we have too much regulation, it's too complex, it's too difficult.
What we need is good regulation and that's what we need to address. We cannot filing regulation, levies and so forth on developments. And the Baroness Pinnock also raised a second. Good question. So what regulation would you remove and change? Fortunately for her, I have an excellent book written by my friend in the place, Kemi, that I am more than happy to share with you to explain what these things will be.
Now we welcome a simplification of the fee categories and the improvements to the planning system performance. But we do have concerns that those increased costs will impact developers and therefore, ultimately, the cost of building a home and the price that someone will have to pay for a home. Or, as Lord Fuller suggested, not getting built. We believe the cost to the planning system overall needs to come down. Now.
The government seems to be going about this the wrong way and a system becomes too cumbersome, complex and too difficult. You don't charge higher fees, you fix the system. We need a system that is simpler, more consistent, more coherent, more proportionate and speedier. That would also be better for all parties both the developers, the local homeowners. They would know where they stood and we wouldn't get such a complex system and it would be cheaper.
And it's not only developers I've spoken to who would be in favour of a simpler, more consistent, more coherent system. Several of the planning officers I speak to have complained that the increasing complexity of the system, the need for more reports and so forth , makes their job more of a processing agent rather than a planner, which is what they were trained to do and where they add most value. Now, as Lord Fuller raised, the government continues to layer costs on building.
Now, the sums are not insignificant even for this 144 million per year, according to the impact assessment. Now, if you applied that just to the government's target, the slim chance target of 300,000 homes per year, that's around about £500 a home. Now, I know it doesn't just apply to it. I use it purely for illustrative purposes. So is it surprising that someone like Taylor Wimpey has said, a major housing developer, that it is not intending to build any more homes in London, its current projects are completed.
The chief executive has said baseline viability is, I think, fundamentally broken in London, the reward for undertaking what is a very high risk form of development in London has just evaporated. The government's housing target requires 88,000 houses a year to be built in London, with a national target for 1.5 million homes over the course of this parliament. Yet estimates indicate that the cost of building housing is highest in London, and in many instances, if someone has to comply with all the regulations, it is simply not viable at the prices that people can afford to pay in London.
Can the noble Lord, the minister, explain what further policy changes the government is intending to make to improve the economic viability of building those much needed homes in London? Now, Baroness Pinnock fairly raised the question of the importance of regulation and the fact that we genuinely do need regulation and we do, to ensure safety, such as at Grenfell. The problem is we have too much regulation, it's too complex, it's too difficult.
What we need is good regulation and that's what we need to address. We cannot filing regulation, levies and so forth on developments. And the Baroness Pinnock also raised a second. Good question. So what regulation would you remove and change? Fortunately for her, I have an excellent book written by my friend in the place, Kemi, that I am more than happy to share with you to explain what these things will be.
17:47
17:47
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Enough of the joviality steady. I think the key point that we're trying to say. here is that this is indicative of the government's approach. While in isolation, we can have sympathy and we can under, as part of a package of continuing to seek higher costs, higher levies, more regulation, rather than seeking to address the underlying issue of a planning system that does not work. You shouldn't have to hit a nail in with a bigger hammer.
You should drill a hole through it. I'm not sure that's the world's greatest analogy, but. But I would appreciate if the noble minister could explain what the government is going to reverse its approach, and I look forward to hearing how it is going to improve regulation, lower costs and get building built. Sorry, get Britain building again.
You should drill a hole through it. I'm not sure that's the world's greatest analogy, but. But I would appreciate if the noble minister could explain what the government is going to reverse its approach, and I look forward to hearing how it is going to improve regulation, lower costs and get building built. Sorry, get Britain building again.
17:48
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I think noble Lords for their contributions and I'll try and answer as many of the the questions that can the points that were raised. First of all with with Lord Fuller we. I mean I can't go into any discussion on the barn, don't we? I mean, we recognize that developers must meet a range of costs when bringing forward development. And that viability remains an important consideration. I think we all accept that.
However, planning application fees, even with these changes, a very small proportion of overall development costs of less than 1%. That's what we talk about, just 1%. The purpose of these regulations is to ensure that planning application services are properly resourced to process process applications efficiently. A better funded planning system can reduce delays, increase certainty and improve the overall development process. And this is something that developers themselves are saying to the government and the money.
And it's absolutely right. The money that is raised should be ploughed back in to into the planning process to make it more efficient. The government's planning reforms share a common objective, creating faster, more effective and more predictable planning system. Local fee setting is designed to improve the resourcing of planning application services. Planning committee reforms are intended to improve the efficiency and consistency of decision making, and these reforms serve different purposes but are complementary. Together, they will help ensure planning services are better resourced, more effective and better able to support housing, infrastructure and economic growth and and the additional burden on top of pre-application fees.
Planning application fees fund the statutory planning application service and are set through legislation, pre-application advice and planning performance agreements are different. They are discretionary services that applicants can choose whether to whether to use. Many applicants find these services valuable because they can help identify and resolve issues at an early stage, improve the quality of applications, and support the effective handling of the complex development proposals. Baroness Pinnock and I think Lord Jameson mentioned about ring fencing.
The government is clear that planning fees income should be invested in planning, application services. The Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 introduces a statutory ring fencing requirement to ensure that fee income is retained and applied to the delivery of the planning function. Once commenced, the ring fencing measures will come into force through separate regulations at the same time as the local fee setting measures. The ring fencing duty will apply regardless of whether fees are being set nationally or locally.
Baroness Pinnock mentioned about pre-application fees, which I think are mentioned there, but just to say that local planning authorities already have powers to charge for discretionary services such as planning, performance agreements and pre-application advice, and to support indigenous digitisation of planning and reducing the cost of of planning and the whole process. If we can use digitisation, for example, to do that, what that should impact upon is that what we clear about fees should rise where costs rise, but they should also fall as innovation and digital transformation return savings over time.
And as I've said, the one this is only 1% less than 1% of the total cost to the to the developer. And we agree with the developers. And I think we all agree that the money that is raised goes back into the planning process, and that should be ring fenced to do that and where the costs can be reduced, we will do that through any transformation using digital, digital, digital services. And with that, these regulations are a practical but important step towards a better funded and more effective planning system.
They will provide planning authorities with the resources they need to strengthen capacity and capability, support more timely decision making and help deliver the homes, infrastructure and economic growth that this country needs. The noble Lord want to intervene.
However, planning application fees, even with these changes, a very small proportion of overall development costs of less than 1%. That's what we talk about, just 1%. The purpose of these regulations is to ensure that planning application services are properly resourced to process process applications efficiently. A better funded planning system can reduce delays, increase certainty and improve the overall development process. And this is something that developers themselves are saying to the government and the money.
And it's absolutely right. The money that is raised should be ploughed back in to into the planning process to make it more efficient. The government's planning reforms share a common objective, creating faster, more effective and more predictable planning system. Local fee setting is designed to improve the resourcing of planning application services. Planning committee reforms are intended to improve the efficiency and consistency of decision making, and these reforms serve different purposes but are complementary. Together, they will help ensure planning services are better resourced, more effective and better able to support housing, infrastructure and economic growth and and the additional burden on top of pre-application fees.
Planning application fees fund the statutory planning application service and are set through legislation, pre-application advice and planning performance agreements are different. They are discretionary services that applicants can choose whether to whether to use. Many applicants find these services valuable because they can help identify and resolve issues at an early stage, improve the quality of applications, and support the effective handling of the complex development proposals. Baroness Pinnock and I think Lord Jameson mentioned about ring fencing.
The government is clear that planning fees income should be invested in planning, application services. The Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 introduces a statutory ring fencing requirement to ensure that fee income is retained and applied to the delivery of the planning function. Once commenced, the ring fencing measures will come into force through separate regulations at the same time as the local fee setting measures. The ring fencing duty will apply regardless of whether fees are being set nationally or locally.
Baroness Pinnock mentioned about pre-application fees, which I think are mentioned there, but just to say that local planning authorities already have powers to charge for discretionary services such as planning, performance agreements and pre-application advice, and to support indigenous digitisation of planning and reducing the cost of of planning and the whole process. If we can use digitisation, for example, to do that, what that should impact upon is that what we clear about fees should rise where costs rise, but they should also fall as innovation and digital transformation return savings over time.
And as I've said, the one this is only 1% less than 1% of the total cost to the to the developer. And we agree with the developers. And I think we all agree that the money that is raised goes back into the planning process, and that should be ring fenced to do that and where the costs can be reduced, we will do that through any transformation using digital, digital, digital services. And with that, these regulations are a practical but important step towards a better funded and more effective planning system.
They will provide planning authorities with the resources they need to strengthen capacity and capability, support more timely decision making and help deliver the homes, infrastructure and economic growth that this country needs. The noble Lord want to intervene.
17:53
17:53
17:53
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
It is a cumulative layering of a whole series of regulations, levies in particular that housebuilders are seeing. So it's not the one 1%, it's the multiple one and two and 3%, each of which in their own way can be looked at and go, yeah, well, probably that is appropriate. But actually cumulatively is making housebuilding unviable in many parts of this country, which is why we are seeing people like Taylor Wimpey moving out of London, the place where we have amongst the most high need for housing.
If we raise the cost of building a home to such an extent that it is the market will bear, we will not get any houses built. That's
If we raise the cost of building a home to such an extent that it is the market will bear, we will not get any houses built. That's
17:54
17:54
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
As I said in the debate before, I think it was before recess when the times were good and the developers margins were high several years ago. That may have been a different case. That is not the case today. If we want homes built, we must ensure that the cost of building them is below the price that they will sell at.
17:54
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Can I just say in response to that, the developers are actually saying that they accept these increases as long as the in, you know, the ring fenced because they say themselves that, you know, the lack of investment in planning departments are a significant barrier to housing delivery in the first place, and a call for greater planning capacity and performance. And that's exactly what these fees are going to do. So I think it's good news, especially when, as I've said, once it becomes more efficient, we can digitise services.
If costs come down, the cost to the to the industry should come down as well. But this is something that's going to help us deliver houses in the future. It's not going to be a restriction. It's something that everybody wants to see. And together with our wider reforms on local face setting, they put planning services on a much more sustainable footing for the future. I beg to move. Yeah.
If costs come down, the cost to the to the industry should come down as well. But this is something that's going to help us deliver houses in the future. It's not going to be a restriction. It's something that everybody wants to see. And together with our wider reforms on local face setting, they put planning services on a much more sustainable footing for the future. I beg to move. Yeah.
17:55
17:55