Tower Blocks: Cladding

Lord Low of Dalston Excerpts

Wednesday 12th May 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, my department has been engaged with Ballymore for more than two years to progress the work to remediate unsafe cladding. We are also paying for expert construction advice for this particular site, which has been available since July 2020. Earlier this year and prior to the fire, I had two ministerially led meetings with the senior leadership of Ballymore and other members of London government to try to get the work started. Sadly, it only started this Monday.

[Lord Low of Dalston (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a lessee of a top-floor flat in a four-storey block. In February, the Prime Minister said that

“no leaseholder should have to pay for the unaffordable costs of fixing safety defects that they did not cause and are no fault of their own”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/2/21; col. 945.]

The Government have undertaken to indemnify those who live in blocks over 18 metres tall, but this leaves leaseholders who live in smaller blocks out in the cold. The Government have offered loans to help them meet the cost, but they are no more at fault than those who lease flats in taller buildings and should not have to pay either. Many cannot afford to pay the interest, which merely saddles them with extra debt. What do the Government intend to do to help them?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I have mentioned the unprecedented level of funding that has been put forward towards the remediation of cladding, but the risks inherent in a medium-rise building are far lower than in high-rise buildings, some of which go well over 30 metres—the higher the building, the greater the risk. However, it is a significant commitment to ensure that leaseholders in these medium-rise buildings do not have to pay more than £50 per month to enable the remediation of unsafe cladding.

Business and Planning Bill

Lord Low of Dalston Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 13th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Low of Dalston (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 6, 7 and 8 in this group—briefly, because the case seems self-evident. These amendments provide that consultation materials should be provided in accessible formats for the benefit of disabled people, particularly those with visual impairments, and that the clock on consultation should be started only once materials have been made available online in an accessible manner. I would be most grateful if the Minister would be willing to take these amendments on board.

[Lord Cormack (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I sat in your Lordships’ Chamber last Monday and heard every speech on Second Reading. Two things came across to me powerfully: the second I will deal with later, when I speak to my Amendment 28. First, I want to address a few remarks to my Amendment 20 and, as it is so short, I will read it for the benefit of your Lordships. Line 7 on page 5 of the Bill says:

“The Secretary of State may publish conditions for pavement licences.”


We should probably change that “may” to must”. I have added the words:

“and in doing so must take into account the needs of the disabled, including the blind and the partially sighted.”

It came across in speech after speech last week that there was real concern on this issue—a concern most graphically expressed by my friend the noble Lord, Lord Low of Dalston, who has just spoken, and my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond, who introduced this series of amendments.

t is one thing to aspire to a café society, which is very pleasant. It is entirely reasonable that we should spill out on to the pavements, if it is safe and suitable to do so. But it is essential that the needs of the disabled —including the blind and the partially sighted—are properly recognised. I very much hope that when the Minister comes to reply, we will have an assurance from the Government that this matter will be explicit and on the face of the Bill. If it is not, I will seek to reintroduce an amendment next week on Report and, if necessary, divide the House, but I am confident that that will not be necessary. I hope that this debate will be brief, and unanimous that on this issue, in those immortal words, “something must be done”.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Low of Dalston]

9: Clause 2, page 2, line 32, leave out “7” and insert “14”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment extends the public consultation period for pavement licence applications from 7 days to 14 days.

[Lord Low of Dalston [V]]

My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment 14 in this group. Applications that have not been decided by local authorities within 10 working days are automatically deemed to have been granted for a period of one year. This is too long and could mean automatic approval for a significant proportion of licences and the volume of applications overwhelming local authorities. Combined with the absence of an opportunity to appeal, the automatic approval process risks allowing hazardous street furniture being permitted inappropriately in inappropriate locations.

If the automatic approval process is to be retained, the period should be reduced to three months in order that licences should not be approved automatically for an excessive period of time and in order to give local authorities the opportunity to revisit licences that have been approved simply due to a lack of resources within a reasonable period of time. Therefore, I would be most grateful for the Minister’s serious consideration of this amendment, and I would be grateful to other noble Lords for their support of it in the course of this debate. I beg to move.

[Lord Holmes of Richmond [V]]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 13, 15 and 16 in this group, which build on the discussion we have just had. Amendment 13 would put in a right of appeal similar to what was discussed in a previous group but in the context of the situation ably set out by the noble Lord, Lord Low, for his amendment.

Amendment 15 changes the date in the Bill from 2021 to 2020 for precisely the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Low, set out. We may be in extraordinary times and certain measures can be changed but I do not believe that it is proportionate at this stage to have a wave-through to 2021. It would be more appropriate to set a date of 2020, and that is what Amendment 15 seeks to achieve.

Amendment 16 brings out again the whole question of consultation and its being properly undertaken with the potential to incorporate views as expressed. It echoes many of the points made in the previous group around consultation. These amendments are specific to this group and to this Bill, but the reality is that these amendments are good not just for this time but for all times, in the sense of enabling full participation, full inclusion and full enablement for all across society.

There is precious little wealth in an argument that tries to push through at pace—understandably—and in so doing states that this is only a temporary measure and thus does not matter, and that we can suspend issues around inclusion, accessibility and full participation. If inclusion and inclusive design matter, and I believe they do, as I am sure everybody in your Lordships’ House does, then they matter for a second, an hour and a day as much as they matter for a month or a year.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Greenhalgh]

For clarification, the definition of adjacent does not necessarily refer to premises. We will write to the noble Lord on his second specific point.

[Lord Low of Dalston [V]]

My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment at this stage.

Amendment 9 withdrawn.