Housebuilders
Lord True Excerpts(6 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I am a member of a London borough and a vice-president of the LGA.
We need more housing, but it must be quality housing, built with consent and built to last, not breeze-block office conversions without planning permission—a policy welcomed in some places but disastrous in others. I thank my noble friend for his willingness to address that issue, which I raised, and for the progress made with regulations. But greedy operators are now buying small, two-storey homes and converting them to cramped HMOs. On 19 December my borough put forward ideas to prevent such abuse of tenants, and I hope for a positive response from the department.
Penal stamp duty has eliminated small starter homes in many London suburbs. The problem goes right up the scale. People add boxes rather than pay the taxman to move. Labour mobility and housing variety suffer. More tax cuts are needed, on top of the welcome one we had.
I detest the stench of greed in that Persimmon bonus scheme, but I will not join a lynch mob attacking housebuilders, and I will certainly not line up with Corbynites or their fellow-travellers who reject profit. I was born in a house built for profit, I rented a flat built for profit, our first home was built for profit and we live in a house built for profit. Yes, most of these were built by small entrepreneurs, of which we once had far more and need again. Let us hope the welcome home building fund will help.
We should be grateful for successful housebuilders of any size. Of course, I would like faster turnover of land use, but do not always blame them or councils for that. Look at public bodies, the masters of most of Britain’s brown land. They are a disgrace. To create a big quango to chase other quangos is not enough. I would set councils loose on those bodies—let them challenge and build where public dinosaurs will not. Housing associations, which are always shouting the odds, need to do better, too. Inside Housing’s June survey showed the same as our Library brief: a fall in their completions last year. It was frankly pathetic to read housing association bosses blaming Brexit for not doing their job.
Our green suburbs define Britain, unlike the bleak tenements round many cities elsewhere. We must not destroy their character to—yes—meet levels of immigration the public reject or household formation predictions some consider unlikely. Some housing targets are absurd. The draft London plan proposes 6,300 small-site developments in Richmond in a decade. Back garden protection would go, with a presumption in favour of infill development. We know the environmental and human importance of green space; Sadiq Khan proposes its wholesale elimination. Concrete jungles in place of green suburbs and gardens—no, thank you. Internal space standards that are maxima, not minima—no, thank you. Destruction of local character, for ever.
New homes also need proper infrastructure: employment, surgeries and schools. These things are best achieved with local authority involvement. For example, we have a striking partnership with Lidl to build a primary school above a new supermarket. That was achieved by discussion in the planning system.
I have always found housebuilders responsive. I praise St James for the provision of a new community hall and education facility in a 300-plus development in Twickenham. It is a mistake to focus on numbers alone. Liveable communities are made not in City Hall or Whitehall but by creative partnerships, with local authorities and housebuilders working together.
Neighbourhood Planning Bill
Lord True ExcerptsWednesday 15th March 2017
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017 View all Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 106-I Marshalled list for Third Reading (PDF, 74KB) - (14 Mar 2017)
“Local authorities meeting housing targets to be permitted to override prior approval
(1) Where a local planning authority can show that—(a) the exercise of prior approvals for the conversion of offices to residential is having a detrimental effect on the local economy, including the expulsion of, or non-renewal of leases to, businesses to make way for residential development, and(b) the relevant local authority is meeting its housing targets and can show reasonable evidence that it will continue to do so,the local authority concerned may, notwithstanding any regulation or provision to the contrary, require any future application in any part of, or the whole of, the local authority area to seek full planning permission and may bring any part of the adopted local plan, or relevant neighbourhood plan, into consideration in determining that application.(2) A local authority may recover all permitted planning fees and costs in relation to any application for a development determination by prior approval, as if the application concerned were subject to all procedures of a normal planning application.”
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, this is Third Reading and there is other business before the House, so I shall endeavour to be brief on this matter. However, it is important. I shall seek not to repeat points that I made on Report and on previous Bills. The subject that I have been trying to deal with is the problem in parts of London in particular, but also in other high-value areas, where there is arbitraging under the current very free prior approval system and where you can switch without planning permission from office to residential, taking a very large profit—threefold or fourfold—and in so doing throwing out of premises businesses that in some cases have been established there for a very long time. I have argued for many years that this was an abuse. In our case, in my authority of Richmond—I declare an interest as leader—we have lost 30% of our office space. As I explained to the House before, in half of those cases the offices were partly or wholly occupied by businesses.
Lord True
My Lords, I am extremely grateful for what my noble friend has said. My great-grandfather was a baker. I am told that my grandmother once said to him, “Some of these loaves don’t look very good”, to which he replied, “Well, it’s the food they want, m’duck, not the fancy”. The fact is that of course one could quibble about the issue of compensation and the crux between the 12 months’ notice and so on. There are issues there and there will be continuing discussion between local authorities and the Government. However, it would be churlish not to concentrate on the substantial steps that have been taken. I am very grateful for those, particularly obviously in relation to the fees but also—we will study the details—for the very clear indication that some of the difficulties in using Article 4 will be removed.
As well as thanking my noble friends on the Front Bench, I thank the Housing Minister, Mr Barwell, who intervened in this matter very effectively and courteously. I do not want to destroy his career but at a meeting of some of the London council leaders earlier this week at which all three parties were represented, the change that the Minister had made was commented on, and this is one small token of it.
I particularly thank my noble friends on the Front Bench and colleagues on the Benches opposite, who have been very supportive over a long period. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Neighbourhood Planning Bill
Lord True ExcerptsTuesday 28th February 2017
(7 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017 View all Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 101-II(Rev) Revised second marshalled list for Report (PDF, 104KB) - (27 Feb 2017)
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
My Lords, it is 43 years since I was on a planning committee and I am sure that the law has changed a lot. However, when I was an MP, I became involved in a case in the Lake District in which someone built a building without planning permission, and there was subsequently a row. The conclusion I drew was: “Knock it down”. The law allows too much flexibility. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, mentioned risk. People are prepared to take a risk, and the only way in which we can make this law work well is if we are far more vigorous in its application.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I very much agree with what has been said and thank my noble friend Lady Gardner for tabling the amendment. I am conscious that we all want to make progress. This is an area where, in time, we should have some examination and this is not a statutory matter to address now.
I always conceive planning as being about good neighbourliness. One of the problems is that retrospective planning applications often come in when someone has encroached a little too much and not quite followed the drawings. Then, because a neighbour who has opposed an application is cross, they go to the council and say what they want to happen. One can get into a whole rigmarole involving costs, not only of retrospective application but of demands to building control such as, “Are you coming?”, “I don’t think that they are building on the right line”, or, “They are moving that hedge”.
Such areas, which seem small, have an impact on the issue of consent in the planning system, about which I have spoken to your Lordships in Committee on this and other Bills. For many reasons, including that given by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, my noble friend’s amendment does not work but I hope that we will hear some sympathetic sounds—I know we always do—from my noble friend on the Front Bench. This is an issue on which the Government might reflect as time goes by, because there is a sense that a lot of injustice is done out there by those who willingly or unwillingly play the system. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, that local authorities are generally loath to intervene unless it is a big issue. Planning officers ask themselves, “Would I have refused the planning application for that one or two-foot encroachment?”. These are the kind of considerations that apply. People should do what they promise they are going to do; that is what the system is about and should be delivered. People should not play the system.
I do not think that we can take this matter further now but hope that my noble friend will think about it over the months and perhaps years—I hope not too many years—ahead and closely examine where the frontier between consent and abuse of consent should be.
Lord Judd (Lab)
My Lords, I should declare an interest as an honorary officer of the Campaign for National Parks. I am glad that the noble Baroness has introduced her amendment and is standing by it here on Report because this is a worrying development. A growing number of people deliberately defy the regulations that are meant to operate. It is not just a matter of building something for which they do not have permission and looking for retrospective approval; a more sinister element is that they get approval with conditions attached—for example, compliance with national parks’ general policy. However, the people then try to do what they want with the building and do not observe the conditions. There is an indication that they are doing this believing, for example, that the national park authority will be hesitant about pursuing them because it is worried about its budget, the costs and all the rest if that person appeals.
We must take seriously the prospect that the quality of an area can change within a short period because, once one person has done it, there is an invitation for all sorts of other people to do it too. I am glad that the noble Baroness is making a stand.
“Local determination of the application of prior approval for conversion from office to residential use
(1) Notwithstanding—(a) any section of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, the Town and Country (General Permitted Development) (England) (Amendment) Order 2016, or(b) any section of any other order or regulation purporting to convey a right to developers to automatic prior approval of the conversion of an office (Class B1(a)) or retail premises to residential use (Class C3), or the demolition of such premises for such conversion,consent may be refused by the local planning authority for the conversion, or demolition for conversion, of any such office or retail space to residential use, if the local authority has, by a majority vote in Council, passed a formal resolution stating that the purported right to approval for such demolition or conversion without full planning consideration shall no longer apply within that local authority planning area, or in any part of it.(2) In reaching any decision on the conversion of offices to residential use the local planning authority shall be able to take account of all representations from the public or from local businesses, and of all aspects of an approved local plan, neighbourhood plan or supplementary planning document incorporated within an approved local plan, provided that it has previously passed a resolution under subsection (1).(3) A resolution under subsection (1) may only be adopted if the local planning authority has laid before the Council no less than a week prior to the vote under subsection (1) a report demonstrating that—(a) the operation of prior approval is damaging local businesses and the local economy and that planning control over the retention of office space is necessary for the future economic development of the area, or(b) active businesses within the area covered by the resolution are being expelled from office or retail space to enable its conversion to residential use.(4) No resolution may be adopted under subsection (1) if the local authority concerned has not met its housing targets in the preceding year, or cannot satisfactorily demonstrate in the report tabled under subsection (3) that it will exceed those targets in the year concerned.(5) A copy of the report laid under subsection (3) must be submitted to the Secretary of State no later than the day on which the agenda for the Council meeting concerned is published.(6) The Secretary of State may set aside, within three months of its passing, any resolution made by a local planning authority under subsection (1) if the Secretary of State does not consider that conditions under subsection (3)(a) and (b) are being met.”
Lord True
My Lords, I apologise for bringing new material before the House at this stage of the Bill, though I did give notice that I might do so at the previous stage. This Bill has been scheduled in a way that could not be more difficult for me. I declare an interest as the leader of a London borough and this evening is our annual budget council meeting, which begins at 7 pm. Looking at the clock, this will probably be the first council meeting in 20 years on the Front bench for which I have been late—I hope I will not miss it, as I hope your Lordships are not that prolix. But it is a testimony to the importance that I feel this matter deserves.
This is something that came up during the passage of the Housing and Planning Act last Session and I argued the point at some length. Ultimately it was stated that it was a red line for the then Chancellor of the Exchequer. I felt that his red lines were around trying to ensure it was possible to oust small businesses in the suburbs of London and that, had he found his red lines somewhere else, perhaps history might have evolved differently. But that is the past. I have since found, having been given some indication that there would be a readiness to discuss this matter, a willingness to discuss it, personified by my noble friend on the Front Bench. This is entirely distinct from the attitude that I encountered not so long ago and I am enormously grateful for that. I underline everything that so many noble Lords have said in the passage of the Bill about the open and thoughtful conduct of my noble friends on the Front Bench and indeed of Ministers. I met the Minister, Mr Barwell, this morning and I found the same open response there.
In a nutshell, this long amendment is about trying to close off some of the issues that were raised with me on the previous occasion. Under the system that was introduced in May 2013, permitted development rights allow office floor space—classified B1 in the technicalities —to be converted to residential space without planning permission. In some areas of the country that is fine. Indeed, these changes have made a great contribution to housing development, including in my own borough, where no one has an interest in defending redundant office space. At no stage have I wished to strike down the willingness of local authorities to go along with that power and use it.
The problem is that in some areas, including my own authority of Richmond, which is a conspicuous example, the difference in value between office property—or, for instance, a stables in my ward that has been affected—and residential property is so great, at 3:1 or 4:1, that the policy has acted as a magnet for unscrupulous developers. I have even traced one or two with offshore designations. They come in, buy properties and begin to expel working businesses. As a Conservative, this is absolutely contrary to everything I believe in and to what our party stands for—aspiring for people who work hard. Indeed, how often do we hear such things from all Benches in this House?
It is wrong that, to make profits for somebody else who has no interest in the community, offices and business premises can be closed. This should at least be subject to local determination. I do not wish to trouble the House at too great a length, as that would repeat some of what I said last year, but in Richmond, up to last autumn, we had 251 of these so-called prior approvals and we have lost more than 30% of our overall floor space. In more than half of the cases, the offices subject to prior approval were, in the jargon, either fully or partly occupied. That meant someone was trying to make a living or was employed there. The owner saw an opportunity to make a profit on this arbitrage between the two classes and pushed somebody out. I think that is wrong, as do all of us in local authorities and local government. There was a wonderful malapropism from my noble friend earlier when he said that the “interesting” parties would be consulted. I am not sure that most people find local government very interesting but we are certainly interested.
We come across many personal cases of people who are homeless, terribly sick, suffering from dementia or in poverty, but one of the most difficult things I have found has been having to explain the situation to constituents—in one case, the grandson of somebody who founded a business in the premises from which they were being ousted so that a developer could make a profit. Therefore, I have put forward some proposals for how this might be addressed, although I make no claim that my solution is necessarily the best one. I look forward with interest to hearing what my noble friend on the Front Bench has to say.
Article 4, which is often proposed as a solution, is not perfect. It is too slow. In the case of prior approval, the new buildings make no contribution to infrastructure —schools, transport or health—and are not required to meet space standards. There is no consideration of loss of business rates or council tax income and so on, and under Article 4 planning fees do not come to the local authority. The current provisions of Article 4 do not allow a planning authority to demand a fee for associated planning applications, so even the standard approval application charge of £80 is lost. Of greater concern is the loss of the planning application fee.
In my borough, according to the figures that I have been given, the 251 prior applications determined would previously have generated fees of in excess of £400,000 but rendered just £20,000 for the borough under the prior approval process. There is a massive gain for the arbitragers and a massive loss for the local authority. A much sharper process will have to be introduced swiftly into Article 4 if we are to address this matter. The problem shifts because the arbitragers move very fast from one place to another, so at the very least some reform is needed.
I also hope the Government will think again about extending the proposals—certainly in areas such as mine, which are already badly affected—to allow demolition and replacement without planning permission. Instead of going in the direction of amelioration, this is going in the wrong direction.
In my amendment, I have tried to accept two points that were legitimately put to me by the Government: first, that a local authority should be able to show that it is conforming with its housing duties and meeting its housing targets; and, secondly, that at some point the Government must have a stopping power if a local authority behaves unreasonably or if it can be shown that a local authority has no reason, in terms of lost employment or threat to the economy, to act. Again, I am not sure whether my formulation is right, but I hope that if my noble friend on the Front Bench—I anticipate that he might give me some hope—cannot accept that this is the way forward today, he will be prepared for there to be further considerations and discussions on this matter. I believe that that is the spirit that I am finding in the Government, but I beg him to understand that, in the spirit of localism, something which may be a boon in other parts of the country is a bane in ours. I hope we will find a way forward to resolve what I believe, in terms of the eviction of businesses, is a social evil.
Lord True
That was a very gracious response. Obviously, I want to study carefully what my noble friend has said in Hansard, but it would be churlish not to accept his offer to look into ways of resolving the issue. I am extremely grateful to have that for the first time. This reflects what I described in my opening remarks today as this very constructive attitude from the Front Bench this time round. I could not be more grateful for that.
I sincerely thank the noble Lord, Lord Tope. It seems quite a long time ago but he was my noble friend when we started along this road in 2013. He has been staunch on the subject because, like me, he has seen it in real life. Good policy has to reflect real life and be flexible enough to accommodate the wrinkles of life. We are not machines. I am grateful to him for his strong speech this evening. I agreed with every word he said. I am obviously also extremely grateful for the brief words from the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and the chairman of the Local Government Association. I should have made reference to the amendment tabled in Grand Committee and I endorse what my noble friend Lord Porter said about my noble friend Lady Cumberlege who has, in a sense, been the conscience of the Committee and the House in the progress of this important legislation. Even though she did not speak on this occasion, I rather felt that the spirit was moving within her. I am extremely grateful. I hope that between now and Third Reading, we can find a way forward. On the basis of what my noble friend said, I am hopeful that that will be the case. I recognise the needs of the Government and of the country as much as anyone else.
With that, I guess I ought to be away to the council meeting. I hope that the House will not be offended if I go off to attend a meeting. The budget is not presented by the leader in my local authority but by my deputy, who is in his mid-80s and about to marry again in July. He is well able to see off a Liberal Democrat and Labour challenge should there be one. I will not break up the sense of unity that we have had around the House. I am grateful for the support from all sides and to the Front Bench, and specifically for my noble friend Lord Bourne’s role in all of this. I look forward to positive talks between now and Third Reading. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Neighbourhood Planning Bill
Lord True ExcerptsThursday 23rd February 2017
(7 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017 View all Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 101-I(Rev)(a) Amendment for Report, supplementary to the revised marshalled list (PDF, 61KB) - (23 Feb 2017)
Lord Porter of Spalding (Con)
My Lords, I should appear to be sympathetic to anything that seeks to push power back into the hands of local planning authorities as regards their ability to reject a planning application and the Secretary of State having to support the decision. But I am worried about anything that would compel that, on the basis that if developers were not able to appeal to the Government to revisit the decision, they would go through the courts, at which point a council would not only have to employ planning people to deal with a planning appeal, it would have to pay for a barrister as well. So while I am sympathetic to the fact that planning applications which have been refused for non-compliance should not be routinely overturned, I would rather see the Government take a firmer hand with the Planning Inspectorate to ensure that when it does intervene in a case, it does so in a way that has been properly tested by the Secretary of State. I said on the last occasion that people in the outside world are saying that some planning inspectors have gone feral, and that position still pertains today. So rather than compelling the Secretary of State to support a refusal by a council, we need to encourage him to take a firmer grip of the Planning Inspectorate to make sure that in all cases it operates in the way the Government have sanctioned and not in a way that it chooses to sanction for itself.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I apologise to noble Lords for appearing late but I have been performing duties for what I declare as an interest, as leader of a local authority which is a London borough. On my way to the Chamber I was listening to the remarks of my noble friend Lady Cumberlege on the annunciator and I have considerable sympathy with the spirit and thrust of all she has been arguing for in this Bill and indeed in the amendment before us. I rather agree with what my noble friend Lord Porter has just said, and I will come back to that in the question of the real non-accountability of the system operated by the Secretary of State in terms of the inspectorate, where there are overturns. I am really addressing my remarks to Amendment 6.
Lord True
Before my noble friend sits down, I will say that I am grateful for the measured tone of his response. As this is Report I will not take up the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley—although I would not always assume that the Secretary of State will be friendlier to local interests than a local authority that owns the land.
The Minister gave a partial response on the point about the accountability of inspectors. He referred to the mystique of the system and said, quite rightly, that inspectors are highly professional. The difference between the inspectorate and the judiciary is that the judiciary is subject to testing by a higher instance, but in this case it is a one-off shot. It need not necessarily be in the context of the time between now and Third Reading, but it would be helpful to have some reflections from my noble friend on how one might shine a little more accountability on the system, because there is divergence of practice. My local authority had considered publishing league tables but we thought that it would not encourage an enthusiastic or friendly approach from some of the inspectors named. If might be interesting if the Minister could reflect on how there could be greater accountability.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
I thank my noble friend very much for that point and I apologise for not picking it up in my earlier response. I will go away and reflect on it. Certainly, it would be helpful if we could give more information about how this process operates—how people are qualified, what the training is and so on. Perhaps we could do that on the website. I will look at that and I thank my noble friend also for the constructive discussions we have so far had on the issue of permitted development, which I know is of concern to him.
Neighbourhood Planning Bill
Lord True ExcerptsMonday 6th February 2017
(7 years, 2 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017 View all Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 86-IV Fourth marshalled list for Grand Committee (PDF, 105KB) - (6 Feb 2017)
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I first declare an interest as leader of a local authority—a London borough council. I must apologise to my noble friend the Minister and to other Members of the Committee. I was unable to take part in Second Reading because we had a full council meeting that day and I could not stay until the end of proceedings. I am also afraid that when the Bill was in Committee last week, I was abroad on an unbreakable work engagement and so was unable to take part in the first two days. However, I have read the debate carefully and rise to speak with due humility. Having read the proceedings, I hope my noble friend Lady Cumberlege will not be disinclined to intervene—I enjoyed reading a large number of her interventions.
I say to the Committee how grateful I am to my noble friend the Minister for his openness and, through him, the willingness of his officials to discuss difficult issues. That needs to be put on record immediately. As my noble friend knows, I am a little concerned about where these proposals are intended to go—we could be bringing out a Dreadnought to deal with problems on the local public pond which, frankly, could be sorted out. I am grateful for the elucidation that my noble friend set out, but we need to understand a good bit more about how these regulations might work. For example, there is a requirement that the applicant must give written consent agreement. How many pages of regulations will there be to say in what terms that will be? Will it have to be legally sanctioned? When will it have to be delivered, et cetera? It says also that the Secretary of State must carry out a public consultation before an order is made. How long will that take? With whom will it be? Will it be in an individual area or across the nation?
We all want to get development going more quickly. But my concern is that, in some circumstances—perhaps the noble Baroness opposite pointed to one when she talked about fear of flooding—pre-commencement conditions actually enable development to happen more quickly and with more consent, rather than, as is assumed, every council necessarily trying all the time to deter. I want to look very carefully at the detail of these proposals.
I am puzzled by the statement in subsection (2)(a) of the new section, to which the noble Lord opposite has referred, that the condition must be,
“necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms”.
Make it acceptable to whom—to the local community, to the neighbourhood, to the people who will be affected or to the planning inspectorate in Bristol?
On the other hand, I cannot follow the noble Lord opposite—even though I understand where he is coming from—in proposing in his Amendment 37 setting up a mediation process. I spoke about this on the previous planning legislation we had before us, in which the Government set up a sort of national arbitration service concept. If one does not define this very closely, there is a risk that everything would automatically go to some sort of statutory arbitrator. That in itself could also clog up the system. With all the good will in the world, it may be that the amendment in the name of the noble Lord opposite is as guilty of causing potential obstacles as overregulation would.
I am not going to support any proposal that this provision be struck out—I see there is an amendment to that effect. I understand the Government’s concern to get development but we have not seen enough evidence. Between now and Report, and perhaps when my noble friend replies, we might get to understand a little better where and when the steel of a Dreadnought will be seen emerging from the department. I am a passionate localist: so much in recent planning legislation is about centralism and making things harder in the guise of getting development. I do not accept the view that local authorities are always against development. I look forward to hearing more from my noble friend, today and between now and Report, on the justification for these proposals.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I have serious concerns about Clause 12, particularly about subsections (2), (5) and (6) in new Section 100ZA on pages 10 and 11. The Government are going to have to rethink this very carefully because, as it stands, Clause 12 will cause more problems than it solves. We have heard many reasons for this, but I will go further. What discussions have been held with the Royal Town Planning Institute? I ask the Minister that because it has sent a briefing on the Bill which states, broadly speaking, that there are advantages to pre-commencement planning conditions:
“These have certain advantages to applicants who may not be in a position to finalise details of a scheme but wish to secure a planning permission as soon as possible. They have advantages to local authorities because councils may have in practice limited legal ability to enforce conditions once a scheme is underway. Conditions are useful to the development industry in general because they enable schemes to be permitted which otherwise might have to be refused”.
If they were refused it would take longer and, as the noble Lord, Lord True, said, you may get faster and better planning decisions as a consequence of having pre-commencement conditions. Refusal of planning permission should, in general, be avoided because of all the complexities which are then introduced.
In telling the Committee what discussions the Government have had with the Royal Town Planning Institute, will the Minister explain what consideration they have given to the 15th report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which was written substantially on the subject of Clause 12? It points out that,
“the national policy framework confirms that planning conditions should only be imposed where they meet six tests. They must be: necessary; relevant to planning; relevant to the development to be permitted; enforceable; precise and reasonable in all other respects”.
So that already exists within the National Planning Policy Framework.
Paragraph 12 of the DPRRC report states that,
“the Government want to take this power because ‘there is evidence that some local planning authorities are imposing unnecessary and inappropriate planning conditions which do not meet the tests in national policy, resulting in delays to the delivery of new development’”.
There may well be such examples. If they do not meet the six tests, there is already a legal statutory requirement to demonstrate that the six tests are applied. But in paragraph 26 of the report, the DPRRC asked for,
“specific examples of pre-commencement conditions to help us understand the effect of subsection (5)”—
which my noble friend Lady Parminter talked about—because:
“None appeared to be included in the explanatory material accompanying the Bill”.
The committee had to ask the DCLG to provide a list of,
“details that developers have had to provide to local planning authorities before building works could begin”.
There are nine things on that list. With my long experience in local government, I can see a very good case for all nine of them. I will come back to this, with some practical examples of what goes wrong if you do not have pre-commencement planning conditions. But when I read that,
“installation of superfast broadband infrastructure”,
is not deemed to be required as a pre-commencement condition, I think this is wrong. We ought to have agreement on superfast broadband infrastructure, since within the next few years every part of the country is going to have it.
I will say more about this issue when we debate whether the clause should stand part of the Bill, but it seems to me that if that is the extent of the problem, the things listed are not in themselves significant problems. I am really starting to think that Clause 12 is not a good clause. We will look at this further on Report, but at present I have to say that this clause will cause more problems than it solves.
Lord True
My Lords, I will briefly intervene—it will be brief because I am enormously grateful for the very full answer given by my noble friend. I am grateful for what he said about clarifying “public consultation” and I agree with a number of things he said.
This point was made by others on the first day in Committee, and I will not go over it again, but this is a Neighbourhood Planning Bill. It is about getting things built, but built with consent, which is the trick one has to take. My concern is if a developer says, “I am not agreeing to any conditions of that sort—you can us refuse permission and we will see you in Bristol”. That is not empowering local people in any way. As my noble friend Lady Hodgson said, the risk is that that will happen, because if the developer decides that it does not want to agree, it is almost fast-tracked to the inspector whatever the local authority does, and that is not necessarily building consent into the system.
Perhaps the Government can wrestle with this point over the next few weeks. There really does not have to be any form of incentive in the law for responsible developers not to co-operate. For example, many local authorities have to deal with developers which have not discharged previous planning conditions—they have just ignored them and nothing is done. Someone comes along and says, “I am going to build here”. You see these people and say, “You have not discharged your previous conditions, so let us write something in here to make sure that you are okay this time”. They then say, “We are not agreeing, we are not signing on there”, so it goes through, but does the inspector always take account? I beg my noble friend, as he considers these things further, not to rig the system too far.
The second cautionary thing I would say, having listened very carefully to what my noble friend said about the phrase “acceptable in planning terms”—which does trouble me—is that I understand from my noble friend that the Government cannot rock along and say, “We’ll have a 24-hour casino on that site, thank you very much”, and that it is about restricting the proposed ambit of the planning. This seems eminently justiciable because it does not refer to the national framework at all, as my noble friend pointed out. So if a little local campaign group is armed with a neighbourhood plan or the local development plan, and the Government come in and say, “We are putting forward this regulation to make it acceptable in planning terms and, by the way, by that we mean the NPPF”, the Little Ditchcombe Action Group might say, “It is not acceptable in planning terms, or in accordance with what we have in the neighbourhood plan that we have agreed, or what has been put in the local development plan”, and you could find yourself in the courts—I do not mean my noble friend in particular.
We need to be very careful about how this phrase is defined—many a lawyer and many a judge would have a high old time and earn a few bob in deciding what that phrase means. It is only the second cautionary thing I would say and I very much welcome the spirit and terms of the clause. I accept the way in which my noble friend said that the Government were coming at it, but they need to be careful. There should not be too many more eggs in the developer’s basket and there should be as much definition as possible—please—before Report. With that, I will stop detaining the Committee.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, I agree with almost everything the noble Lord, Lord True, has just said. I thank the Minister for his very full response, which is much appreciated. I agree with him—I do not want any conditions imposed, including those he termed “necessary”, “relevant”, “enforceable”, or “reasonable”. I think everybody in the Committee will be in agreement with that—there is no problem there whatever. He also said that these pre-commencement conditions are not necessary. That is good to hear, but I worry that at the end of the day this will all be either so vague that it will not make any difference or so detailed that it will threaten sustainable development. I am not clear about what I have heard from the Minister. I hope he will respond to us in his letter about where we are going because I certainly want to see development take place that is sustainable, that we learn from the lessons of the past and that we get things built properly.
I may have misheard him, but will these discussions between the planning authority and a developer or an applicant take 10 days—someone else may have said that—and if not, how long should that go on for? He is determined but, as the noble Lord, Lord True, said, the risk is that nothing is agreed and that everything goes straight off to the appeals process. That is not delivering development by consent—certainly not sustainable development and not development that is in accordance with the local neighbourhood plan, or the local development plan. I live in London, as the noble Lord, Lord True, does. Certainly, in my own ward we are developing a neighbourhood plan and we are putting hours and hours of work into that. It seems daft that if we agree something, we could then find it all just pushed to one side. I do not know what the Minister can say now, but I certainly look forward to seeing his letter.
In a moment we will debate whether Clause 12 should stand part of the Bill. I look forward to the Minister’s letter because we have still not had the list of rogue authorities. At the moment, I am convinced that the clause is a sledgehammer to crack a nut. We have had one or two problems with plugs and things but these are not massive. If there were these problems, the noble Lord would have listed them in his contribution; maybe they will be in his letter, which I look forward to.
Lord True
My noble friend makes a strong point but I do not agree with him, I fear. I am not going to repeat the points I made on the previous amendment. The problem with new subsection (5) is that it effectively gives a veto to the developer and therefore a power, which may or may not be a good thing.
However, my noble friend made a good point in relation to, for example, a play area. We all understand that the wonderful civil servants who work for my noble friend are trying to do a reductio ad absurdum of what might happen, so they find a council that has said, “Oh yes, the play area has to have one of those spring things instead of a see-saw”. We all know that that would be ridiculous. Maybe it has happened. But there are things on that list, as the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, said, that are actually quite important and germane. Anyone who has been on a planning committee trying to secure development in suburban or rural areas will know that lighting is one of the most fiercely contested things that local residents care about most. It is also one of the most difficult things to control.
No doubt some things on that list are silly. Perhaps my own authority is one of the bad authorities. We have occasionally have had a run-in with the people who want to put in boxes for broadband, not because we are against it but because they come and say, “We want to bang this box right in front of a grade 1 listed building”, instead of agreeing to put it a little further down the road, and they rush off and have dinner with the Chancellor and the Chancellor says, “This is ridiculous. We must have legislation”. This is the way the world works. We all know that.
Somewhere in the middle of all this is a sensible via media. Saying that you cannot develop until you put a Big Ears statue in would be completely ridiculous. But some of these other things are best dealt with at an early stage. Drainage is obviously a good one, as are sustainability and lighting. The problem with this goes back to my analogy right at the start—the old Dreadnought thing. Time and again, we poor local authorities face legislation in the dock—always local authorities, never the statutory undertakings, never the builders with the land banks. Only the local authority is to blame because the local authority is perhaps trying to reflect some of the opinions of its local people by whom it is elected. We are always put in the dock and the Dreadnought is brought out to deal with the silly local authority which says, “I must have a Big Ears statue before I give any permission to 150 homes”. Of course the Government want to deal with that.
I have an open mind on this clause, as I said, although I hear what my noble friend Lady Cumberlege has said and I do care about neighbourhood planning. Surely there must be a way through that is not just nationalising this massive power to deliver for the exceptions that are causing problems. Surely it must be possible between now and Report, with the spirit that my noble friend the Minister has displayed, to find a way to give the Government a power to deal with the authority that wants Big Ears before there can be a development, without actually taking away the ability of local authorities and neighbourhoods to protect what they think is important and have development with consent. That is all I ask for. If Clause 12 can find a way to do that, let us look at it. At the moment, it does need amendment. We will see what happens between now and Report.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, I apologise to the Committee for being absent during the discussion of the previous group, and the very beginning of this group. I am afraid I have had to return from a funeral; otherwise, what I am about to say now I would have said in the debate on Amendment 43A, to which I added my name.
As the Committee will recall, Amendment 43A reflects the recommendation of the Delegated Powers Committee in paragraph 22 of its recently produced report, which came out on 27 January, dealing with the way the Government propose to exercise the delegated powers contained in the Bill, as set out in a document published last December under the intriguing title Further Information on How the Government Intends to Exercise the Bill’s Delegated Powers. Five areas were identified in respect of which the intention is to rely on secondary legislation. For this afternoon’s purposes, we are of course dealing essentially with the planning conditions in Clause 12. However, there are other issues: Clauses 1 to 5 are on neighbourhood planning, Clauses 6 to 11 are on local development documents, Clause 13 is on the planning register and Clauses 14 to 36 are on compulsory purchase. Therefore, although the Delegated Powers Committee drew attention to a series of matters, today we are dealing with the relevant provisions under Clause 12, which I suspect is in any event probably one of the more controversial clauses.
As we have heard, the Bill vests the Secretary of State with powers by regulation to prevent authorities imposing particular types of planning conditions in any circumstances at all or only in particular circumstances, as prescribed by the Government, and to stipulate that no conditions at all are to be imposed on particular types of grants of permission. The Government’s explanation of this was that,
“there is evidence that some local planning authorities”—
number and identity not disclosed—
“are imposing unnecessary and inappropriate planning conditions which do not meet the tests in national policy, resulting in delays to the delivery of new development”.
It is of course interesting that the Government make no mention of the hundreds of thousands of houses for which planning permission has been given but of which not a brick has been laid. They concentrate only on other potential problems.
The Government have admitted that,
“the power to prescribe the circumstances where conditions may or may not be imposed and to set out the descriptions of such conditions is wide”.
They concede that, but conclude that a delegation is appropriate. The committee expressed concern that the power would,
“allow the Secretary of State to prescribe conditions in relation to any type of planning conditions when the key aims of the Bill are to facilitate the building of new homes”,
and expressed surprise that no reason for this was given. Some of us would argue that even in respect of new homes it goes too far, but to make it more general and part of any planning permission seems beyond the scope of what the Bill is supposed to be about.
The committee stated at paragraph 16:
“We consider it inappropriate for the Government to be given a power which could be used to go well beyond the stated aims of the Bill”,
and recommended that it should apply,
“only to planning conditions for housing developments”.
It went on to criticise the proposed replacement of the existing power to provide guidance discouraging the imposition of unreasonable conditions with a power to prohibit such conditions completely, without any opportunity for the relevant planning authority to justify those conditions. Furthermore, the Government have expressed their intention to exercise the Bill’s delegated powers, including draft regulations specifying five types of condition that will be prohibited. The committee points out that there would be,
“nothing to prevent the Secretary of State from using the new power to prohibit many more conditions”,
so we are not necessarily just being confined to five areas. This would give carte blanche to introduce further prohibitions in the future.
Unsurprisingly, and in common with so much legislation, including the Housing and Planning Act, which we spent so much time on last year—the fate of which may be somewhat altered, one hopes, by the housing White Paper that is about to emerge—the committee states that,
“the negative procedure is not an adequate level of Parliamentary scrutiny for the exercise of these new powers, which could substantially restrict the ability of local planning authorities to attach conditions to the grant of any type of planning permission”.
It recommends that the affirmative procedure should apply to proposed new Section 100ZA(1).
The committee goes on to express concerns in relation to proposed new Section 100ZA(5) to (7), which deal with pre-commencement conditions: the controversial provisions which forbid planning permission being subject to such conditions without—extraordinarily —the written consent of the applicant. That is a significant change in the law and a significant move away from the local planning authority to individual developers. But no illustrations of such conditions are included in what passes for the explanatory material provided with the Bill. Although, as I understand it, the committee was provided with some at its request. It is extraordinary that in a matter as controversial as this, the explanatory material completely overlooked the issue. Under the Government’s scheme, in only one case will it be possible to impose such a condition: when the applicant fails to reply within 10 days of receiving notice of a proposed condition. The committee was concerned that there is no duty to consult before making regulations in relation to these provisions and said that,
“the Secretary of State should be required to consult not only developers but also local planning authorities and other interested parties”.
It recommends in paragraph 30 of its report that,
“the Secretary of State should be required to consult before making regulations under subsection (6)”.
If the suggested amendment is made, the Delegated Powers Committee will be content with the negative procedure. If not, it recommends the affirmative procedure.
I do not know what the Minister’s response was—I take it this issue would not have been raised in the opening debate—but I understand he has indicated that there will be a further response to the Delegated Powers Committee. However, I hope he is able to take back the view—which I think will be widely shared by this Committee, across any political divide—that it is simply not good enough to rely again on the use of a negative procedure on important matters of this kind. It has happened far too often and has been the subject of many reports, Bills and committees in your Lordships’ House, and yet the Government seem to ignore all the doubts and objections and continue to use—or propose to use—the negative procedure for dealing with highly controversial matters. The Minister is not able, alas, to change this with the stroke of his pen, but I hope he will convey what I think will be the view of many in this Committee, across the political divide, that this is not a satisfactory way to proceed, particularly as we are dealing with a significant change in the planning regime.
I hope the Minister will take back the strong views that have been expressed and that by the time we get to Report, we will see some Government amendments. Otherwise, I envisage that there will be amendments on Report from across the House seeking to test the House’s opinion on whether the Government should be allowed to get away with what many of us consider—and clearly what the Delegated Powers Committee considers—to be an abuse of process.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, Amendment 45, which is in my name and that of the noble Lords, Lord Scriven and Lord Shipley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, seeks to add a new clause to the Bill. The purpose of the new clause is to make provision for local planning authorities to recover the costs they incur in delivering their development services. This is needed by local government, which very much supports the proposal, and the amendment draws all-party support. Local government already subsidises this process by well over £100 million per annum, which is not right at any time, but particularly at this time of reduced budgets and pressure on local services. The fact that the Government are allowing councils to increase their council tax by up to 5%, particularly to deal with the issue of social care, shows how unsustainable the present situation is.
Amendment 57 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Beecham, seeks to ensure that the costs of the new planning duties are calculated and adequately funded. In opening this debate I will leave my remarks there; there are other amendments in this group, which I am sure will be spoken to, and I may also have a few questions for the Minister when I respond. I beg to move.
Lord True
My Lords, before other supporters of the amendment speak, I will briefly signal my view that this matter needs to be addressed. I spoke about it at some length on the previous legislation, and supported the relevant amendments.
As an example, it costs my authority over £1 million a year on a budget of about £150 million, which is a significant amount of money, effectively to subsidise aspirations to development. People want to appropriate an advantage—which is perfectly reasonable in a free society—but impose costs, obligations and sometimes potentially loss on their neighbours. It seems entirely reasonable that this service, which is a good public service and done well, should be paid for by those who by definition can afford it. If you are whacking in a development, whether it is an extension or a major development, you can certainly afford to cover the cost. I ask for no more than the covering of the cost of providing that service. I so much agree with what my noble friend Lord Lansley said earlier. We want good planning officers to enable this thing to happen. Unless we have proper resourcing, it is simply not possible to attract and keep good planning officers.
What is happening here, with all the other pressures on local authorities, is that a sector—those who wish to assert property rights and seek pecuniary or personal advantage by so doing—are being subsidised at the expense of money that is squeezed away from other sectors, whether it is the provision of education, social services, or whatever. I cannot believe that this Government—a Conservative Government—would wish in the longer term to subsidise this small part of the profit-making sector at the expense of broader public social services. Although it is above my pay grade—and although I hope that my noble friend Lord Bourne is immensely influential in the Government, it is probably above his pay grade too—I hope that at some time the cry that this is entirely unreasonable will be heard.
I also have great sympathy with Amendment 57 in this group. Where new burdens are added, please can the costs be considered or covered? Clause 13—to which no amendment is tabled; there would have been one had I been here last week—adds a burden. We had burdens on the housing and planning legislation last year, such as compiling new information and making returns. This means officers being employed—young men and women coming into offices up and down the country, doing time and sending returns to the Government. That is a cost on public funds. I would rather that no additional burdens on local authorities came out of government regulation, but if there are, please can we consider support, particularly in this highly pressed planning sector?
I therefore have sympathy for all the amendments in this group, and I am sure that there will be much give and take about what wording is correct and how it might be done, by whom or when. I beg the Government to allow this service for those who seek to make profit and personal gain and improvement—to which I have no objection in principle at all—to be charged at cost.