Minister for Intergovernmental Relations
Lord German Excerpts(2 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, a few weeks ago, the Secretary of State for Wales said that he had to “bite his tongue” when asked about matters relating to the devolved Government in Wales. Subsequently, he went on to criticise some of the health policies of the Welsh Government. On the need for mutual respect between the various Governments of this country, could the Minister tell the House the correct approach that Ministers should take to these devolved matters? Does it always involve biting tongues?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, clearly, there needs to be constructive engagement on devolved matters, and I believe that there is. In fact, the commitment to Wales is really quite considerable: there has been £352 billion of support for the whole of the UK, and, in Wales, this included protecting more than 460,000 jobs through the furlough scheme. We continue to recognise the need to work closely with all our devolved Administrations.
Homeowners: Cladding-related Costs
Lord German Excerpts(2 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
We have continued with the progress of the existing fund, which is now at over £5 billion. As I have said, nearly 700 buildings have had their funding approved for the remediation of other forms of unsafe cladding, similar to the type seen on Grenfell Tower. Obviously, further details around the financing scheme will be announced in due course.
Lord German (LD)
On 24 May, I asked the Minister about the funding gap in remediating external wall cladding. The Government estimate that £15 billion will be required to fully remediate. The Government are putting in £5.1 billion and there is £2 billion from developers. That leaves a gap of £7.9 billion. In reply, he said,
“We need to watch this very carefully.”—[Official Report, 24/5/21; col. 807.]
Having cast his watchful eye over this matter, will he say whether these figures have altered, and how the gap will be filled?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, those are not official figures. There are a lot of estimates, and there is a great range in those estimates. We are carrying out some detailed research so that we can properly understand the incidents, particularly in lower-rise and medium-rise buildings, where remediation would be required. Then we will be in a position to know the burden that will potentially fall either on the taxpayer or on leaseholders.
Fire Safety: Leaseholder Bankruptcies
Lord German Excerpts(2 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I recognise that this crisis has built up over many decades and that the Government have a duty to step forward and help to a degree, but we must recognise that government funding does not absolve building owners of their responsibility to ensure that their buildings are safe. They should protect leaseholders where they can.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, the Government have said that they need £15 billion for the remediation of wall cladding. As the Minister rightly said, the Government are putting in £5 billion, but the levy they are seeking to raise from developers will provide only £2 billion over 10 years. It is capped at that sort of figure. When and how will the gap be filled?
Wales: Replacement Funding
Lord German Excerpts(3 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord German
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how the money replacing funding previously provided by the European Union in Wales will be administered.
The Minister of State, Home Office and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)
The UK shared prosperity fund will help to level up and create opportunity across the United Kingdom in places most in need and for people who face labour market barriers. The UK-wide investment framework will be published later this year. In addition, to help local areas prepare over 2021 and 2022 for the introduction of the UK shared prosperity fund, we will provide £220 million of additional UK funding to support our communities to pilot programmes and new approaches.
Lord German (LD) [V]
The Minister told the House last year that Wales would receive at least the same sums of money that it had previously received from the EU—that is, money that was administered by the Welsh Government to meet priorities they set in devolved areas. Can the Minister tell us what portion of this £400 million-plus annual funding will be administered by the Welsh Government? Will the UK Government make a portion biddable across the UK? Can the Minister reassure the House that they will not use these funds to cut across devolved areas of competence without the approval of the Welsh Government?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, the UK Government have a responsibility to support the economic health of people, businesses and communities across the entirety of our United Kingdom. The Government have committed that the devolved Administrations will be represented on the governance structure for the UK shared prosperity fund.
Non-Domestic Rating (Designated Area) Regulations 2021
Lord German Excerpts(3 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord German (LD) [V]
My Lords, I also welcome these regulations and the narrow spectrum that they contain, but I want to address the wider issues that business rates inflict on business in this country, particularly with regard to the needs of revival following the pandemic. While these regulations provide a system for incentivising growth and encourage local government to take steps to promote business growth, they will not serve every cash-strapped council in the short term. The effects of the pandemic and lockdown have shown how challenging our present business rate system is and how fragile a tax it is.
One of the first incentives that the Government provided to business during the pandemic was a business rate holiday, and rightly so. Given the extent of the lockdown, this is acting as a real drag-anchor on our town centres, which are now facing a much smaller retail offering moving forward. Fixed business rate taxes act as a discouragement to newcomer shops and enterprises. Our town centres will need a rethink if they are to survive as hubs for our communities.
Equally, the universality of business rates and their inherent weaknesses will undoubtedly lead to slower town centre recovery in the poorer parts of the country. Boarded-up shops will be more of a feature if large steps are not taken now to revitalise our town centres. The retail and community offer in our centres must be given the right incentives if they are to re-establish these as places to which people want to go. Our business rates system is simply not fit for purpose for this to happen.
The crisis facing our high streets and the burden business rates place on companies compound the problems that we have with this tax. Business rates, by taxing the value of a business’s machinery and premises, are a tax on investment itself. The result is a higher bill for the ambitious entrepreneur who decides to expand factory space or add solar panels to the roof and a lower bill for the speculative landowner who chooses to leave their commercial plot derelict or unused. The replacement of business rates with a new tax based solely on land value and paid by landowners, would remove the existing disincentive to invest. It would also spare millions of small businesses which rent their premises the unhelpful administrative burden of business rates.
Business rates have become an unacceptable drag on our economy. This system is a tax on productive investment at a time of chronically weak productivity growth and a burden on a high street struggling to adapt to the rise of online retail and the impact of the pandemic. Because of the highly unequal way in which land values currently exist, a land tax of this sort would significantly reduce business taxes in the poorest parts of the country, helping bring about the regional rebalancing that is so badly needed. By taxing only land, and not the productive capital above it, it would remove a major disincentive to investment, boosting productivity and accelerating the UK’s recovery.
The business rates retention policy in these regulations, of sharing between central and local government—and solely within local government in this case—and providing local councils with extra cash to promote growth, could work equally well under a land value taxation scheme. Any growth in revenue could still accrue to the local authority alone. Therefore, although I agree that these regulations can serve us well as a policy in a period when growth is possible and likely, I encourage the Government to consider a new system altogether which would stimulate growth and encourage endeavour rather than just taxing it.
Leaseholders: Properties with Cladding
Lord German Excerpts(3 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I am not aware of a specific issue with right to buy, as we saw in the 1980s. If my Twitter account is anything to go by, it is not related. This is about all leaseholders, particularly those in high-rises, as opposed to those who have just exercised the right to buy. It is in all settings, both public housing and private housing.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, I rent a flat in a block of unsafe flats in London, and I am surrounded by leaseholders who suffer greatly as a result of the turmoil and fear of the consequences. Does the Minister agree that it is now time for a comprehensive financial solution to these matters, not one that tinkers around the edges? Will he tell the House what consideration he has given to the proposal he received last week from lawyers and financial advisers on behalf of leaseholders for a special purpose vehicle that would provide the £12 billion shortfall that the Government say they are unable to meet from public funds?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I am happy to report that I spent a considerable amount of time being briefed by Dean Buckner, who is at the heart of those proposals, the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership, and the APPG on Leasehold and Commonhold Reform. I can also say that Michael Wade has been asked by my right honourable friend to look into this matter. There was a huge amount of similarity in thinking on how to move forward. In fact, we learned a lot from the discussions. At the moment, I cannot say exactly what will be put forward. That matter is obviously above my pay grade, but we are getting there.
Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2020
Lord German Excerpts(3 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord German
That this House regrets that the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2020 (SI 2020/755), the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) (Amendment) (No. 3) Order 2020 (SI 2020/756), the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2020 (SI 2020/757), the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Amendment) (England) (No. 2) Regulations 2020 (SI 2020/859), and the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Amendment) (England) (No. 3) Regulations 2020 (SI 2020/895) laid before the House on 21 July were made as delegated legislation because it would have been more appropriate to have brought forward such substantial and wide-ranging changes to the planning system in primary legislation.
Relevant document: 25th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)
Lord German (LD) [V]
My Lords, I have two interconnected reasons for tabling this debate today: first, to examine the significance of the measures in these regulations, and, secondly, to scrutinise the parliamentary procedures used to introduce them. I look forward to the debate and particularly to the two maiden speeches that we will hear today.
The pieces of legislation that we are debating today were introduced using the weakest form of parliamentary scrutiny available—the negative procedure—and yet these measures, now laws, have a significant impact on planning policy in England. If they are indeed significant, and I maintain that they are, they have avoided the proper scrutiny that Parliament is supposed to provide to ensure they provide the best outcomes possible. The role of Parliament is to assess, amend and correct the laws of our land, and to ensure that the impact of any changes is fully understood. The negative procedure that brought these measures into law means that unless a Member prays against them within 40 days of their being laid, they will automatically enter into law. However, it is primarily a procedure meant for routine and non-controversial matters—the least form of scrutiny for the least controversial matters.
The policy issues in these orders have the effect of reducing the level of scrutiny that local people and their local councils have on a range of planning applications. This in turn raises concerns about the ability of local authorities to deal adequately with the needs of their local communities. The policy changes include making it easier to demolish vacant buildings to create new homes, with reduced scrutiny of the quality of new housing, and changing the use of certain properties—for example, changing the use of a building from an office to a restaurant, including a fast food restaurant—without the need for full planning permission.
These new laws also permit the building of additional storeys on houses and flats, with very limited ability for the local council to intervene. Of particular concern is that these additional storey regulations came in two batches, the second of which is before us today. Amazingly, the regulations on the charges to be applied for making these additional storey planning applications came to the House by the affirmative procedure, thereby guaranteeing a debate in the House, whereas the policy changes themselves on additional storeys on properties were brought in by the negative procedure. Therefore, the only way of getting a debate on these and the other planning changes, and the only way of having it discussed by the House, was to put down a take-note or regret Motion, of the kind we are using today.
I recognise that the ability of the Government to use these parliamentary procedures stems from the primary legislation on planning currently in place. However, it is also clear to me that that primary legislation did not envisage such large-scale changes to be dealt with in this way. Moreover, the Government are proposing new primary legislation in this area and have issued their White Paper, Planning for the Future. Given the Government’s intentions in the White Paper, it would have been the appropriate mechanism for introducing the widespread changes provided by these regulations. The Government state that the reason for their new planning Bill is:
“Thanks to our planning system, we have nowhere near enough homes in the right places.”
If that is the Government’s objective in these regulations then why not debate them properly in the course of this upcoming new primary legislation?
I draw the attention of the House to two facts worthy of consideration. First, planning permissions are already given for enough homes to meet the Government’s target of 300,000 a year. Secondly, there are about 1 million unbuilt homes for which planning permission has already been granted.
The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, of which I am a member, expressed big concerns about the restriction that these regulations place on the expression of local concerns that could be considered by councils. Additionally, the committee felt that the ability of local councils to shape the character of their high streets would be curtailed, in particular their ability to control the number of fast food restaurants in their areas.
The committee’s report to your Lordships’ House says that these new orders and regulations
“make substantial and wide-ranging changes to planning legislation”
and warrant much deeper scrutiny and analysis. If these changes had been made under primary legislation, such detailed scrutiny would have occurred. Better law depends on the detailed scrutiny and broader consultation which Parliament provides. Planning decisions are a delicate balance between different pressures on the use of our land. These measures move the needle away from local decision-makers and could damage the framework of our local communities. I agree with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, on the committee’s report:
“The more that secondary legislation is used for significant matters of policy, the more the balance of power is tipped towards the executive and away from parliament. For parliament to serve our citizens properly, it needs to have effective means of debating, scrutinising and deciding upon proposals such as these.”
The Motion today provides an opportunity to debate these matters. It would have been far better for this House, and us all, if the Government had engaged properly with Parliament to enable us to carry out our role effectively. I look forward to the upcoming maiden speeches by two new Members of the House, and to the Government explaining why they have taken this route and acknowledging the significance of these changes.
Lord German (LD) [V]
I thank the Minister, but first, I congratulate the noble Lords, Lord Sikka and Lord Lancaster, on their excellent maiden speeches today. They have both demonstrated the contribution they will be able to make to this House—the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, on financial and tax matters and the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, on defence matters. I must say I am really looking forward to the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, to fireworks and rebellion; put those together and I think that might be something I would encourage him to take part in in your Lordships’ House. While I may have contrary views to both noble Lords, they have shown they will be able to add a great deal to the richness of our debates and considerations.
I am also grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate today. What has been amply demonstrated by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, and others is that these regulations have great significance to the way we conduct planning activity. My noble friend Lord Greaves, the noble Baronesses, Lady Bakewell, Lady Jones and Lady Uddin, and other noble Lords have shown how the needs of local communities, as well as broader needs, are not reflected in the measures.
Brownfield sites and design quality have been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Herbert, and he was critical of the tiered system of legislation to come. I look forward to his contributions in that debate when we have it—because there will be debate. A significant part of the reason for this debate today is that we have not been offered that opportunity before.
The noble Lord, Lord Crisp, and others raised significant concerns about the extension in the use of permitted development rights and also that these procedures do not lead to well-designed additional affordable homes, a point raised and reinforced by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and my noble friend Lady Thornhill, who also joined in the criticism but emphasised the financial model that drives new homes and called for review and evaluation. My noble friend Greaves pointed out the lack of consultation on these measures—another process issue, which is one of the reasons I brought this Motion in the first place.
As noted by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, 90% of planning permissions for housing being approved and a million homes that have been given planning permission and not yet built demonstrates to me that it is not the planning system that is at fault but the system of delivering homes. I hope the Minister will reflect further on this as we consider the primary legislation of the planning Bill, which is soon to come.
I was hopeful that the constitutional element of this debate would be answered by the Minister, for whom I have a great deal of respect, given his previous service to local government. The head legislation, the primary legislation, which gives authority over these regulations is 30 years old, and clearly, as planning and community needs have altered, updating is important. The fundamental question remains: why were these regulations not rolled into the primary legislation the Government are proposing?
I note there has not been wild enthusiasm from contributors to the debate for the detail of these proposals, but scrutiny, evaluation and debate would have informed and improved these plans. Although I am grateful for the response from the Minister, he has not answered that fundamental issue. However, as we will have many opportunities to debate these matters further, I do not intend to press my Motion.
Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development and Miscellaneous Amendments) (England) (Coronavirus) Regulations 2020
Lord German Excerpts(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord German
That this House takes note of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development and Miscellaneous Amendments) (England) (Coronavirus) Regulations 2020 (SI 2020/632).
Special attention drawn to the instrument by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, 21st Report.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, I move this Motion because these regulations contain important policy matters that make significant changes in planning law, as outlined in the report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, of which I am a member. These would otherwise not be discussed by this House. Admittedly, we had a debate under the affirmative procedure on the fees regime for these planning law changes, but as Members who participated will know, it was the substance of these regulations that was the principal concern of the House. Before addressing the policy changes themselves, I shall spend a few moments examining the parliamentary process which has led to this debate.
First, these regulations are being brought in under the “Coronavirus” heading: two completely separate matters are addressed by these regulations and only one is related to the coronavirus pandemic. The part of the legislation covering the building of additional storeys is both permanent and totally unrelated to the present pandemic, so it is quite legitimate to ask the Minister to explain why this planning law change is misrepresented as a response to the coronavirus health issue. Secondly, as our previous debate on the fees issue demonstrated, significant policy changes are being proposed through the weakest form of parliamentary scrutiny that exists. This is a perfect example of a major policy change being side-slipped through Parliament, first, under the cover of a response to the coronavirus crisis and, secondly, by the use of the negative procedure.
There are further changes coming down the line in the form of a suite of negative procedure regulations that also make big policy changes to planning law. I find this all the more surprising when the Government are proposing new primary legislation on planning law, which would be the ideal and wholly appropriate vehicle for consideration of these changes and would have had the value of full parliamentary scrutiny, undoubtedly leading to better legislation. As it is, the Government are giving the public a set of hand-me-downs one piece at a time, with no possibility of developing a cohesive policy. Why are the Government doing it this way? I look forward to a full explanation from the Minister.
I turn to the policy intent itself. The permanent change to planning law allows up to two additional storeys to be constructed on existing, purpose-built blocks of flats of three storeys or more built between 1 July 1948 and 5 March 2018, up to a total height of 30 metres. When the Government consulted on these proposals, the majority of responses were opposed. The opposition fell into a number of areas but, broadly, they were the lack of local accountability, the quality of the homes in the new storeys, access issues and the impact on residents and neighbours. Of course, upward development should be possible, but only with the essential proper protections for the existing community. These regulations introduce a new and permanent permitted development right that removes much of the protection for those communities.
The process of consultation proposed is a shadow of what currently exists. The expedited approval process may be suitable for considering home extensions, but the building upwards of new floors on domestic buildings are major schemes with large community impact. While prior approval notice is to be served on owners and tenants, within a very tight timetable, all comments received are to be considered only if they relate to the dual issues of amenity and external appearance. For example, will the council be able to consider the means of egress from the building? Is the lift core of sufficient size for the increased number of residents? What about negative effects on the service charges levied on owners? Then, of course, there is the quality of build issue—the materials to be used and the match to the existing homes. It seems to me that the number of new homes delivered by this mechanism will not be great, and certainly not the 800 a year anticipated by the legislation.
A three-storey property extended up to five would require a lift. If one is not present in the existing building, it would mean the construction of one external to the building. An existing lift in a building with five floors may not be a suitable lift for seven floors. Consider the protection provided for existing residents in these blocks. The developer will be required to produce a report on how they intend to minimise disruption; a report not subject to any checks will be produced by the developer. Anyone who knows this business will know that significant disruption is inevitable. The roof covering will need to be removed and the remaining roof area made temporarily waterproof before any construction can take place. It is difficult to see how this can be done without erecting scaffolding around the whole building for a considerable period, during which existing residents will suffer a major loss of amenity as a result.
Residents will turn to their council and their councillors to express their concerns, and they will find them powerless. Our planning system is constructed on a system of checks and balances, on local people and their councils providing the fair play our communities need. I would be very surprised if developers using this legislation did not meet substantial local opposition, meaning much more work for the local authority but without the power to provide any solutions. The light-touch planning requirements in these regulations offer very little succour to residents and neighbours, who will now find their ability to voice their interests and concerns severely limited.
These proposals indicate a Government making a dramatic shift away from strong and caring communities, with local councils as their facilitators, towards the aspirations of developers and a distant Government. It is through local councils’ transparent process of planning and regulations that the public can make their concerns heard. It is only through this process that elected councillors can make recommendations and insert conditions that ensure the protection of those affected and pay respect to the principle of community cohesion.
The Minister, in responding to the previous debate, called these regulations “gentle densification”. Well, the Government have got it wrong—they are anything but gentle. With the opportunity of the new planning regulations and the new planning law which the Government are providing, it would be wholly appropriate for the Government to take these regulations away, give them a comprehensive rethink and bring suggestions for any changes back in the primary legislation, where they could be properly debated.
The Minister of State, Home Office and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)
My Lords, we have had an interesting, in-depth and wide-ranging debate on the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development and Miscellaneous Amendments) (England) (Coronavirus) Regulations 2020. I thank noble Lords on all sides of the House for their contributions. I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord German, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, for tabling the Motions and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for its report drawing the regulations to the House’s attention. I would like to take the opportunity to provide some further detail on the points raised by noble Lords in this debate.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, raised consultation with local authorities. We undertook public consultation on building upwards, which included local authorities. Other temporary measures were brought forward at pace to give flexibility to local authorities to hold outdoor events. The noble Baroness, Lady Redfern, the noble Lord, Lord German, and my noble friend Lord Bourne asked why these planning measures were grouped with other coronavirus measures to kick-start the economy. This is to keep both sets of measures in one instrument; it is important to make the most efficient use of the instrument. It is possible to use an instrument to amend more than one order, which is why the compensation regulations were also amended. The noble Lord, Lord German, also queried the vehicle’s use in respect of permitted development orders. Negative procedure orders are the only way to amend the general permitted development order, as I understand it.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord German, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, raised the issue of community engagement being affected by this approach to planning. The permitted development right for building upwards on existing blocks of flats is subject to prior approval by the local planning authority. This allows the consideration of key planning matters. Among other matters, they can consider the external appearance of the building and the development’s impact on the amenities of the existing building and neighbouring premises, which includes overlooking privacy and the loss of light. There is no deemed consent and these planning issues can be raised. The local authority is required to consult with adjoining owners or occupiers of the land adjoining the site.
The noble Lord, Lord German, and my noble friend Lord Randall both raised the issue of egress. New permitted development rights to extend existing buildings upwards allow engineering operations to construct the additional stories and safe access to, and egress from, the new homes. Both the noble Lord, Lord German, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, raised the issue of disruption to occupiers and neighbours. We are aware that development can have an impact on both occupiers and neighbours, and that might occur during the construction of additional homes by building upwards. To ensure that this is considered before work commences, a developer has to prepare a report setting out the proposed hours of operation and how they intend to minimise any adverse impact of noise, dust, vibration and traffic movements during the building works on occupiers of the building and neighbouring premises.
The noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, and my noble friend Lady Gardner both made the point that this does not address the problem of homelessness. A number of noble Lords—including the noble Baronesses, Lady Ritchie and Lady Wilcox—mentioned that this does not specifically contribute to the provision of affordable housing. It is true that the permitted developments do not require affordable housing provision and do not tackle homelessness. However, I point out that where additional floor space is created through the right, and the local authority has a charging schedule in place, a community infrastructure levy might be payable. In addition, registered providers or local authorities can use the right to extend their blocks to provide more affordable and social housing.
The quality of homes was raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Wilcox and Lady Redfern, and the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow. All homes built under permitted development rights are required to meet building regulations. In addition, such developments must conform with any conditions required by the prior approval. We have introduced a new requirement that homes delivered under this and other permitted development rights must have adequate natural lighting in all habitable rooms. This issue was raised by a number of noble Lords in the debate. We expect that the developers will want to bring forward homes that are of good quality and marketable.
My noble friend Lord Bourne raised the issue of space standards. It is a government priority to see new homes brought forward, and we think that developers are best placed to assess the type and size of homes best suited to the local market. We know that some well-designed new homes delivered through both planning applications and permitted development rights are smaller than the voluntary space standards. We do not wish to place stricter requirements on homes delivered through permitted development than through planning applications. I should also point out that smaller properties can be less expensive to buy, opening up home ownership to more people.
The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, raised the issue of HMOs. Homes delivered under these rights cannot be used as houses in multiple occupation. Local authorities have the power of enforcement if there is a breach of planning laws.
My noble friend Lord Bourne, the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, all mentioned the impact on leaseholders, potentially adding to enfranchisement costs. Freeholders will have to comply with the terms of any lease in taking forward proposals to extend the building upwards. The Law Commission’s report on enfranchisement valuation, recently published, includes an option for leaseholders to elect to take a restriction on future development of the property. This would have the effect of reducing the price otherwise payable when a leaseholder or group of leaseholders purchase the freehold. We are considering the detail of the Law Commission’s proposals and will make an announcement in due course.
My noble friend Lady Altmann raised the issue of prior limits on total units. You can apply to vary the conditions of a planning application. National permitted development rights do not remove existing conditions placed on a granted planning permission. My noble friend Lord Taylor raised the issue of utilities, among other issues. The right allows for the moving of existing plant—for example, the water tank or air conditioning units on the roofs of buildings.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, raised the very important issue of building safety. As the building safety Minister, this is obviously something I consider to be of the utmost importance. Ensuring that buildings are safe remains a priority for this Government. Whether homes are brought forward through a planning application or through a permitted development right, they are required to meet fire and other building safety requirements. The new permitted development right to extend existing buildings upwards allows the engineering operations to construct the additional storeys and the safe access to, and egress from, the new homes. In the interests of time, I will write to my noble friend Lord Randall on some of the issues he raised, such as the time limitation and local authority markets.
The purpose of the regulations is to enable businesses to continue to operate safely during the coronavirus outbreak and to support housing delivery and economic recovery. Together with further statutory instruments laid in July, they form a package of measures to speed up and simplify the planning process to create new homes on existing blocks of flats and help businesses to continue to operate safely and to respond quickly to changes in how communities use their high streets.
The regulations we have considered today introduce a new permitted development right which allows the upward extension of detached purpose-built blocks of flats for the construction of new dwelling houses. This builds on national planning policy to boost density without the need to build on greenfield sites. Permitted development rights make an important contribution to housing delivery, helping us to meet our plans for 300,000 new homes per year. These rights have brought forward schemes that might not otherwise have come forward.
In conclusion, delivering new homes is a key priority for this Government. These regulations are an important tool to help drive up delivery by simplifying and speeding up the planning system. They also form part of our response to help businesses operate during the coronavirus outbreak. Having introduced a new category of permitted development right to construct new dwelling houses, we are keen to ensure that the rights are operating effectively, so I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, that we will be keeping their implementation under review and monitoring the impact. In the words of my noble friend Lord Naseby, this is a useful addition.
These permitted development rights make effective use of existing residential buildings and gently boost density. They avoid the need for sprawling greenfield development by focusing on existing residential locations and areas more likely to have access to public transport. The rights respect the appearance of the existing streetscape while ensuring that the amenity of neighbours is considered through prior approval considerations.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful for a moment to reply to the Minister. I note that the issue of the way in which these regulations and those which are to follow, which are all in the sphere of planning regulations, was not answered in the debate. It is a matter of concern for us all that we will be faced with other regulations which will address the same issues. While we have not had the answers, I have no fear that we will have an opportunity to do so again in future weeks before us and before this House.
Mobile Homes (Requirement for Manager of Site to be Fit and Proper Person) (England) Regulations 2020
Lord German Excerpts(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, I strongly support these regulations, which are very important for the protection of vulnerable people living on mobile home sites. The need for these regulations, which ensure the safety of those living on mobile home sites, is illustrated by one of the most despicable cases in recent years: the 2013 discovery on a mobile home site in south Wales of two persons who had been enslaved for 13 years.
In September 2013, following a tip-off, police raided a site outside Newport and discovered human slavery at its worst. One of those rescued, Darrell Simester, who was originally from Kidderminster, published a book some three years later describing the 13 years of hell that he had endured as a slave. Darrell, who has autism, was first forced to work for 15 hours a day, without pay, in appalling conditions. He worked on a farm for two meals a day, and for 11 of the 13 years had to wash himself in a horse trough. For the final few years, he lived in a caravan in terrible conditions, wearing filthy clothes and losing some of his teeth. Thankfully, Darrell now lives independently with support, and the perpetrators have received long prison sentences.
This site was, however, listed by the local authority—certainly for most of the time Darrell was incarcerated there. That is why this legislation is so urgently needed: to give protection to vulnerable people like Darrell and to support those harassed by unscrupulous owners of sites.
I have some questions that I hope the Minister can answer. First, what reassurance does this legislation provide for close collaboration between the police and local authorities? In the case I referred to it was the police who received a tip-off and initiated action. This legislation places the responsibility on much-stretched local authorities. How will this important relationship between local authorities and the police be managed? I understand that some of it will be covered by DBS certificates.
My second, and not unrelated, question, is about the nature of “a fit and proper person”. Schedule 3 lists the criteria for judging whether the site manager is fit and proper to do the job. Most importantly, the criteria on harassment need to be clarified, because they refer to whether the relevant person
“has harassed any person in, or in connection with, the carrying on of any business”.
Does that mean a conviction for harassment, or would a recorded complaint of harassment be sufficient for the police?
In supporting these regulations, therefore, I hope that the Minister can answer those two questions.
Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2020
Lord German Excerpts(3 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, what I find strange about these regulations is that they are subject to the affirmative procedure and that we get a chance to debate them, but the associated legislation, which describes the matters on which these charges are to be levied, is not. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee felt that the latter was important enough to bring it to the attention of the House. I think the conclusion I draw from this debate is that you cannot debate these regulations without examining the other regulations.
The first thing to note is that the adding-two-storeys-to-a-block-of-flats legislation was introduced as a coronavirus measure. Alongside the uncontentious temporary use of open spaces until the end of the year for such things as restaurants and cafés, this significant piece of housing legislation—first consulted on in 2018—was slipped in. Perhaps the Government were mindful of the fact that the majority of respondents to their consultation did not like the policy.
I believe I have an interest in this matter, which I declare, in that I rent a flat in London in a block that could have two storeys added—but the one I live in has ACM cladding like the Grenfell Tower block, and it has not yet been removed. While the Government explain that the two or three extra storeys will meet building and fire safety requirements, they do not provide for the same requirements to apply to the existing building. The block in which I rent a flat clearly does not meet building and fire safety requirements, but any extra storeys would have to. Will the local authority have the power to reject permitted development rights on the grounds that the existing building does not meet fire and safety requirements? If not, what would be the mechanism for consideration of this important matter?
The Government currently restrict what issues the local planning authority can use in determining the application to the amenity of the existing block and neighbouring properties and the external appearance of the property. I note that “external appearance” are the words used, not “external construction”—a feature that is so important for health and safety but also because of the load-bearing and engineering aspects that the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, and others have talked about.
The consultation process leaves much to be desired as well. While notice is to be served on owners and tenants, all comments received are to be considered only if they relate to the amenity and external appearance issues. I appreciate that the word “amenity” can be stretched, but will the Government consider the means of egress from the building, for example? Is the lift core of a sufficient size? Can the Minister tell us whether there will be further guidance to explain the issues that could be treated as amenity matters and therefore used by the local planning authority in determining the prior approval application?
I would be very surprised if developers using this legislation did not meet substantial local opposition, and that means more work for the local planning authority. It would probably have been better to charge the same fee for a full planning application, because it will not be adequately funded for the work it will have to do.