Neighbourhood Planning Bill

Debate between Baroness Gardner of Parkes and Lord Beecham

Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 28th February 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con)]

My Lords, I have brought this amendment back in exactly the same form it had in Committee because I thought the comments the Minister made then really deserved to be re-examined. This is an important issue that ordinary people care about very much. Everyone is very unhappy to find suddenly that something has been given retrospective permission without them having any idea that it was even up for reconsideration.

As the Minister said on that day in Committee:

“How we deal with unauthorised development is an important issue that concerns many people”.


I think that is right. He also said:

“It is important to note that retrospective planning applications must be determined in exactly the same way as any other application, that is, in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise”.—[Official Report, 6/2/17; col. GC 346.]


He then referred to what the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, said about this, which was also interesting. The Minister mentioned that if somebody has deliberately concealed the fact that they are doing development, as in the famous haystack case, they can be required to demolish the property.

What I found most disappointing in what the Minister said was that the local authority concerned does have an obligation to consult people—I put the part about consultation in my amendment because local authorities are not doing so. Certainly, in the cases where I have been affected by retrospective planning permission, the first thing I have known about it is when I received a note saying, “We have granted planning permission” for whatever disastrous thing it was near me. I have met so many other people who have been in the same situation. If there is an obligation to consult the same people whom you would have consulted before, why is it not being done for retrospective permission? It all smells a little bit. Is this because someone is trying to slip something through retrospectively and feels that they will get away without any consultation or having to attach any conditions? It bears looking at again.

I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, who mentioned the serving of enforcement notices. The Minister certainly picked up the point about enforcement proceedings, but I am not suggesting going any further on those issues.

I must reiterate that my interest is declared in the register; I should perhaps have said that at the beginning.

The Minister went on to say, regarding enforcement, that,

“there is already a double charge”.—[Official Report, 6/2/17; col. GC 347.]

I had not appreciated that there was already a double charge, but apparently that is the case only if you have an enforcement notice. There is no extra charge if you have simply not applied and come back to get your permission, and the local authority has not notified those people who should be consulted. Is that because there is corruption, or is it laziness on their part? It is very important to have some way of ensuring that—it really would be good. The Minister said that it would not be helpful to delay effective enforcement action. All of these things are true, but why are they not adhering to the letter of the law as it is? Why are ordinary people suffering? They are finding that, instead of being able to insist that some reasonable condition that would suit everyone in the locality be included in the planning consent, and the planning authority would consider whether it was a justifiable condition to attach, they are simply not being consulted and are getting word after it is all over and done with.

I suggested a penalty fee in that proposal because planning officers to whom I have spoken have said to me that, at the moment, there is no disincentive whatever to going retrospectively for permission. You can be brave and just have a go and you have nothing to lose because you have no disadvantage: if you find out that you have not got permission, you go for it then and it does not cost anything more; you might have saved yourself a lot of time, trouble and bother, and you have just gone ahead with what you wanted. On the idea of a penalty fee, the Minister said:

“It is a matter which I know previous Governments have considered and to some extent grappled with, but in the interests of fairness have decided not to take forward”.—[Official Report, 6/2/17; col. GC 347.]


In speaking to other amendments in Committee, the Minister said that he would be looking very seriously at various things for secondary regulation, as to what should or should not be regulated and what should or should not be considered. However, I believe that this is the sort of instance that should be looked into. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, has said to me that this is more complicated than I imagine. I am sure, from his wisdom and knowledge, which is very great on these subjects, that I would accept that that probably is a fact, but it does not mean that it cannot be investigated and looked into. If, as I understood from the answers in Committee, there is going to be all this consideration of future regulations, then this merits being looked at much more closely. Rather than going on and on, because we have an awful lot to get through today, I beg to move.

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, this matter was debated briefly in Committee. I made the point then that I had a good deal of sympathy with the intentions of the noble Baroness’s amendment requiring a retrospective planning application, although it did not seem to me that the rest of her proposals—with all due respect—had been fully thought through in terms of how they might be applied.

In particular, subsection (2) in the amendment is unnecessary, because if there was a planning application then, of course, fees would have to be paid. There is also a real problem with subsection (3)—I think I said this to her in Committee as well—which prescribes the payment of an additional charge without giving any indication of how that might be calculated. I suggested that the matter could have gone forward on the basis that that would be determined by secondary legislation, but that has not appeared in this amendment. For those reasons, I am afraid that we cannot support the noble Baroness’s amendment, although I suspect that she will not divide the House in any event. While her intention is very good, the means of carrying it through do not quite meet what is required.

Neighbourhood Planning Bill

Debate between Baroness Gardner of Parkes and Lord Beecham

Report: 1st sitting: House of Lords
Thursday 23rd February 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I support the noble Baroness as an ordinary working Peer. I hope that the Minister will feel able to accept the amendment. I am not quite sure what the position is in relation to Amendment 38 and whether the noble Baroness intends to move it.

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes]

I do not.

[Lord Beecham]

In that case, I will simply commend these amendments.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Baroness Gardner of Parkes and Lord Beecham

Wednesday 13th April 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, the House is indeed fortunate to have such an expert in parliamentary procedure as the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane. I have listened to him and learned a great deal in a very short time; I am sure that other noble Lords will feel the same. It is interesting that the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, has effectively confirmed that he approves the noble Lord’s approach to dealing with these matters. Otherwise, Parliament in effect will be being asked once again to sign a blank cheque covering matters of considerable importance and complexity which will simply proceed under ministerial fiat. That cannot be healthy, given the nature and importance of the topic we are discussing.

I hope that the Minister, who has today written to some Members of the House about aspects of this matter—I am sure that the document will be in the Library as well, although somewhat belatedly—will acknowledge that the noble Lord has made a very powerful case for adopting a more conventional procedure than that of delegating determinative powers which will be exercised without any oversight at all. Nothing in what the noble Lord suggested would substantially obstruct the carrying out of the Government’s policy; they would just have to explain and seek parliamentary approval in what is, after all, a pretty normal way. I hope that the Government will react positively to the amendment. If, having regard to apparently moving circumstances as reflected in her letter, the noble Baroness is unable to accept the amendment today, if she could undertake to come back on it at Third Reading, that might suffice. Otherwise, I suspect that the noble Lord will be tempted to test the opinion of the House. In that event, the Opposition will certainly support him.

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con)]

My Lords, I, too, have served on the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee for at least two sessions of three years each. What concerns me is the word “regulations”. Does it mean that this will be another regulation that will come to us in a pre-formed state and we will not have any opportunity to consider its implications? I find it very worrying that we are doing more and more by secondary legislation and less by primary legislation, and I should like the Minister to cover that point in her reply.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Baroness Gardner of Parkes and Lord Beecham

Thursday 17th March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con)]

My Lords, this amendment is self-explanatory, and people in this House have heard me speak before on the issue of sinking funds. It was drawn to my attention particularly by people who bought their council flats in the days of Margaret Thatcher. No sinking funds were set aside at all and, if you are a tenant in a local authority block, you do not have to pay for sudden repairs. However, the case I quote to the House is of a woman who has an income of £10,000 a year and received a bill, this year, for £12,000 for her part of the roof repairs. When I followed this up with the housing association that owns the property, it said the problem is that there are 26 people in exactly the same position. To avoid this, from the day that you own a leasehold, you should really be part of a sinking fund so that you do not suddenly find yourself threatened with losing your home altogether because you cannot find the money. What happens if she does lose her home? The local authority has to pick it up again, so it seems that the fund is necessary.

It is also very necessary and important that a sinking fund exists in private blocks. We do not have one in the block that I own a flat in and, some years ago, someone suggested that we have a voluntary scheme. The scheme came into force and we all put our money in, and it was great because it paid for all the repairs for the year—some minor and some less minor. Then, a new tenant bought a leasehold in the block and said, “I don’t want to pay a sinking fund; there is nothing in the lease about it”. They had to give us all back our money, whereupon, years later, we will be faced with another giant bill for a new boiler system or new central heating or something.

It really is so much better if people have a sinking fund for repairs, and it is important that this should be a possibility for people in local authority housing and people who have a right to manage, even if their lease does not have provision for a sinking fund. My aim is to put in a clause that would enable people to decide that by a majority. If a majority want it, it should come into force, and it should not be the case that it can be withdrawn at a later date, which was what threw our system into complete chaos, it having been done on a voluntary basis. I beg to move.

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, I sometimes think that the noble Baroness’s title is not really adequate: “Baroness Gardner of Leaseholds” would have been better than Baroness Gardner of Parks. She is an expert in these matters and deeply committed to improving the situation of leaseholders, and on that she is to be congratulated. It is fair to say that the aspirations in these amendments are to be welcomed. However, I have some difficulties with the drafting.

In Amendment 84E there is a reference to:

“The buyer of a leasehold in a shared residential building”.

However, not every owner is a buyer—they may inherit or be given the property, and so “buyer” is not the right term. That also applies to subsection (4) of the amendment’s proposed new clause. It is also not clear in proposed new subsection (1) how the requirement is to be made. Normally, of course, provision is made within the lease. The implication here is that, somehow, legislation should overtake the provisions in an existing lease, which I think is a somewhat difficult concept. Furthermore, proposed new subsection (3) says that:

“The sums to be deposited and the timetable for their deposit shall be determined by those holding rights in the shared building”,

but it does not indicate how many of the leaseholders would be required—I suspect that a majority is what is intended, as it is in subsection (1) of the new clause proposed in Amendment 84F. That needs to be tidied up.

Having said that, there will be a chance, if I may say so respectfully, to improve the wording of the amendment before we get to Report. I hope that the Government will be sympathetic to this and possibly work with the noble Baroness in coming to an agreed position. She has highlighted a significant issue that is having adverse consequences for many occupiers of leasehold properties; at any rate, those with common parts. Perhaps the Minister will undertake to look at that with her and others to see whether the Government might bring forward an amendment to meet the objectives set out here but, as I said, unfortunately with drafting that may not achieve them.