New Homes

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Tuesday 12th September 2023 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Young of Cookham]

To ask His Majesty’s Government in what year they expect to reach their target of building 300,000 new homes a year.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Scott of Bybrook) (Con)]

My Lords, we are continuing to work towards our ambition of delivering 300,000 homes a year. This has always been a stretching ambition and we have made strong progress. The three highest rates of annual supply in more than 30 years have all come since 2018. We are aware that increasing supply even further will be made more difficult due to the economic challenges we face, but we are engaging with Homes England, developers and registered providers to understand their delivery challenges.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

I am grateful to my noble friend, but has she read the leader in last Saturday’s Times? It said of the Government’s housing target:

“That goal has now been sacrificed on the altar of appeasing rural Conservative backbenchers fearful of a backlash in their green and pleasant constituencies”,


and concluded:

“The political calculations of the Tory party are in danger of strangling Britain’s housebuilding industry, retarding economic growth and depriving young people of the affordable homes they so desperately need”.


Can my noble friend confirm that this controversial policy, which was launched in a consultation document last December and has not yet been adopted, might be amended in light of the widespread criticism that it has now generated?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Yes, I have read the Times article. We are carefully analysing the many detailed responses we received to the consultation and expect to respond formally later in the autumn. It is worth making it clear to my noble friend that the proposals in the consultation are not government policy. My noble friend should also be reassured that, as I have said before, the Government remain committed to our ambition of delivering 300,000 new homes per year. The proposals in the consultation are designed to support areas to get more local plans in place. That will deliver more housing and stop communities being exposed to development by appeal.

Private Sector Renters: Eviction Protection

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Wednesday 6th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I do not have that information with me but I will certainly look at it and write to the noble Baroness. However, the Government are investing £12 billion in Help to Heat schemes. As I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, it is sad that not enough private rental landlords are taking up those grants. We also have the ECO Plus scheme—the GB insulation scheme—for which both tenants and landlords can apply. In the energy security strategy, the Government have just announced zero-rated VAT for the next five years on the installation of insulation and low-carbon heating. It is important that landlords know what is available and that tenants ask them for it.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome what my noble friend said on the Renters (Reform) Bill, but what action is being taken to address the delays in the courts that are asked to process cases relating to tenancies?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My noble friend is absolutely right about the court system: it is too slow. On difficult cases that escalate to the courts—not all of them do—we are working with the judiciary, the Ministry of Justice and HMCTS to target areas that frustrate proceedings, including through digitising more of the court process to make it simpler and easier for landlords to use.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 6th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

I apologise to the House for that. The amendment aims to address the problem of local planning authorities unwittingly, and I think occasionally intentionally,

“frustrating a higher-tier authority’s aspirations for walking, cycling or rights of way networks”.

We must not forget the rights of way, because you cannot walk or cycle if rights of way get blocked. The problem is in not recording those network aspirations in authorities’ own development plans,

“thereby failing to safeguard land for those networks, to connect new development with existing networks and/or to secure developer contributions to implement or upgrade specific routes”.

I will give examples. It is probably worse with two-tier authorities. Where the local transport or highway authority, which is usually a county council or combined authority, is not the same body as the local planning authority, you can have this example, which Sustrans exposed. The alliance says that

“one part of a unitary authority commissioned Sustrans to assess the feasibility of re-opening a disused railway line as a walking and cycling route, yet another part of the same authority then gave permission for a housing development which blocked that disused railway line before Sustrans had completed the study. In another case, planning permission was granted by a local planning authority for development which adversely impacted a section of the National Cycle Network (which Sustrans manages), with planning officers unaware of the existence and importance of this walking, wheeling and cycling route”.

This is confusing for local authorities, especially when they are probably very short of resources, as many noble Lords have said on previous amendments. I think the Government believe that our concerns about lack of co-ordination would best be addressed through the NPPF, but that does not mention it, and it omits other things altogether. Unless we get something here that links granting planning permission with taking account of adequate provision for walking, cycling and rights of way, we are in trouble.

I will give one other example before I conclude. In a recent case in Chesterfield in Derbyshire, the local planning authority considered a housing development close to the town centre and railway station. The council officials pressed for the development to include walking and cycling routes to facilitate access to, from and through the development, and obviously to and from the station. However, when the committee was due to consider the application, the developer made a submission claiming that the walking and cycling routes would render the developments economically unviable, and the councillors accepted that view without really challenging it. I have cycled on many cycle routes that probably suffer from the same failure by a developer to provide a proper, sensible route, because it tried to persuade the planning authority that it would be all right on the night, and it is not always.

I hope that the Government will support this amendment. Active Travel England is involved in this, and I certainly welcome what it is planning to do. However, it will often be consulted only at a later stage, and it would be much better if the relevant authorities’ walking, cycling and rights of way network plans were clearly shown in development plans from the outset.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 199 on cycling in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and I will follow briefly in his slipstream, if I may.

I am grateful to the Minister for the Teams meeting that she held on this subject at the end of last month to find common ground. Throughout our debates on the Bill, the Government have suggested that our objectives could be better met through NPPFs rather than through legislation. But throughout the debate there has been some scepticism about that, as there is ample evidence that leaving things to guidance does not actually produce the results.

The NPPF guidance on cycling was last revised in 2018, but there is a real problem with that guidance, and I hope that my noble friend can give me some assurance. One paragraph of that guidance said:

“Development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe”.


This paragraph makes it very difficult for local planning authorities to refuse developments whose location or design fails adequately to support walking, cycling and other sustainable transport modes. If we are to rely on future NPPFs, can my noble friend give me an assurance that that provision will be removed, because it stands in the way of many of the Bill’s objectives?

The final point raised in the Teams meeting was one that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has just mentioned: the conflict between upper and lower-tier authorities. At the meeting, my noble friend was good enough to say that she would have another look at this and would perhaps be able to respond on it.

I very much welcome what has been said—that Active Travel England is now a statutory consultee—but it would be better if it could be involved at an earlier stage of the proposals, as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said, rather than at a later stage, when it would be difficult to retrofit the provisions for cycling that we would all want to see. I hope that my noble friend the Minister is able to provide some reassurance on those two points.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, in view of the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, I will be much briefer than I intended, so we might ramble around a little.

On Amendments 193 and 194 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, I absolutely understand his points and will await the Minister’s answer on the reasons for that omission from the Bill. I have to confess to the noble Lord to having made the assumption that they would be in the Bill. In fact, reading through this section, I thought “Why are people putting down these amendments? Aren’t they what people already do in a good local plan?”, so I am grateful for his attention to detail.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Young of Cookham]

195: Schedule 7, page 347, line 38, at end insert—
“(6A) The local plan must be designed to secure that the supply of housing through development in the local planning authority’s area meets or exceeds the requirement for housing during the plan period which would be derived from the housing targets and standard method prescribed in guidance by the Secretary of State as applicable at that time.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require a local plan to meet or exceed the housing need for the authority’s area as specified by Government targets.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 195 in my name and those of my noble friend Lord Lansley, the noble Lord, Lord Best, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman.

For me, this is the most important group of amendments in the whole Bill; they go the heart of the question of whether one of the basic responsibilities of government is to ensure that the nation is adequately housed. I hope that it is common ground that there are some core functions of central government that it should not opt out of: ensuring that the country is well defended, that the streets are safe, that families have a basic income, that children are well educated, that there is access to a decent health service and that people are adequately housed. These are either provided centrally by government—defence, health and income support—or mandated to be provided by others, in the cases of policing, education and housing.

Basically, what happened last December was that housing was deleted as one of those core functions. It was done not as a considered act of policy but as a reaction to a group of Government Back-Benchers who were threatening to rebel. As a former Government Chief Whip, I am well aware of the importance of party cohesion—but not at any price. Yes, the nominal commitment remained with central government—the 300,000 housing target—but, crucially, the means for the Government to secure that target was removed. The targets became advisory, not mandatory: a starting point and not a destination.

The way the system has worked for as long as I can remember—going back to the days of the GLC in the 1960s, and to the 1980s when I was a Minister and SERPLAN—is that central government has formed a view of how many homes the country needs. It has looked at household formation, life expectancy, broader demographic trends, regional policy and net inward migration, and then come up with a global figure. That has then been divvied up between the planning authorities, after consultation, to underpin a credible national housing policy.

It should be immediately apparent that this is not a process that can be left to the discretion of local councillors. They look downwards to their electorate, to whom they are accountable, while national government has a broader responsibility. For example, left to their own devices, local authorities would make no provision for migration, which is a responsibility of national government. The noble Lord, Lord Best, will develop that point. As I have said repeatedly in this House, you cannot rely on the good will of local government to provide the homes that the country needs.

Before the policy was reversed, we were falling well short of our target. New homes granted planning permission declined to 269,000 in the year to March, down by 11% on the year to March 2022. After the reversal, the target becomes less achievable. The starkness of the climbdown was revealed in an article in the House magazine by Theresa Villiers, who referred to her amendment in the following terms:

“This was backed by 60 MPs, and in response, the secretary of state brought forward significant concessions to rebalance the planning system to give local communities greater control over what is built in their neighbourhood. That includes confirming that centrally determined housing targets are advisory not mandatory. They are a starting point, not an inevitable outcome. Changes have been promised to make it easier for councils to set a lower target”.


I believe that my colleagues in the other place have misread the politics. Yes, there is a risk of losing a few votes from those who do not wish to see development in their area—we saw the consequences of that in a by-election in Chesham and Amersham—but there is a much greater risk of losing far more votes in a general election if we are seen to be a party that is insensitive to the needs of those who need a decent home against a background of lengthening waiting lists, more use of temporary accommodation, rising rents in the private sector and home ownership becoming more difficult.

Our opponents in the main opposition party have spotted this weakness and will continue to exploit it until we put things right, which is what the amendment seeks to do—restoring what was government policy when the Bill was introduced, before the policy was ill-advisedly abandoned in December. There is a strong case for giving the other place an opportunity to reflect on this policy change now that we have seen its consequences. My noble friend Lord Lansley will develop that point.

The consequences were made clear in a unanimous report, published in July, from a Select Committee with a government majority. It said:

“The Government’s reform proposals include making local housing targets advisory and removing the need for local authorities to continually demonstrate a deliverable 5-year housing land supply. We have heard evidence from many stakeholders that these measures will render the national housing target impossible to achieve”.


It also said:

“This uncertainty has resulted in 58 local authorities stalling, delaying, or withdrawing their local plans to deliver housing—28 of those since the December 2022 announcement. Contrary to the Government’s objective of facilitating local plan-making, the short-term effect of announcing the planning reform proposals has been to halt the progress of local plans in many areas”.


Several authorities have stated that the reason for delaying their local plans is that they are waiting for the outcome of consultations. On that subject, the report concluded:

“In many cases, this will be on the understanding that they will no longer be required to meet their local housebuilding targets”.


The report further concluded that

“it is difficult to see how the Government will achieve its 300,000 net national housing target by the mid-2020s if local targets are only advisory. The Government has not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate how the policy of removing mandatory local housing targets will directly lead to more housebuilding”.

Before tabling this amendment, I did what I could to press the Government to think again. My noble friend has answered countless Questions on the 300,000 target; she can look forward to another next Tuesday. She has been generous and patient with her time in many meetings. I have seen the Secretary of State and his special adviser, and my noble friend Lord Lansley and I have seen the Housing Minister—all to no avail. Far from this amendment being contrary to government policy, it is essential if the Government are to meet their manifesto commitment of building 300,000 homes a year. I hope that, even at this late stage, the Government will think again. If not, I propose to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, this has been a long and good debate, and I will not detain the House with a long summing up. I will deal first with the core defence that the Minister has just laid out, namely, that the way to get more houses is to have more up-to-date local plans. That argument was considered seriously by the Select Committee in the other place, which said this about what the Minister has just told us:

“We are sceptical of the Minister for Housing and Planning’s confidence that greater local plan coverage will result in more housebuilding. If there is no longer a requirement for up-to-date local plans to continually demonstrate a five-year housing land supply, and if housing targets in local plans are to be made advisory, then it does not necessarily follow that more local plan coverage will result in the same increases in housebuilding as under the current NPPF”.


In one paragraph, I am afraid that it demolishes the main defence that the way forward is through more local plans.

I am grateful to everyone who has taken part in this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Best, pointed out that the Government’s target is very modest by international standards and explained how the imperatives of local politics will always require local councillors to go for a lower target rather than a higher one, so it would not be fair on local councillors to leave this in their hands.

My noble friend Lord Lansley made an important constitutional point that the major changes were made to the proposed NDMP after the Bill had completed its stages in the other place. It has not had an opportunity to consider these major changes in housing policy and will not unless this amendment is carried. He also made the point that housing has risen up the agenda since the rebellion last December, and there has been some evidence of a movement of opinion within the governing party down the other end.

I am grateful for the support from the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, who pointed out the statistics were going in the wrong direction. I was disappointed by the response from the Liberal Democrat spokesman. Only one thing is clear: if we do not carry this amendment, we will get fewer targets. The Government say they want more houses but, again, I quote from the Select Committee report:

“it is difficult to see how the Government will achieve its 300,000 net national housing target by the mid-2020s if local targets are only advisory”.

I was Housing Minister to my noble friend Lord Deben. If I had gone to him and said, “It doesn't matter how many houses we build”, I am not sure that I would have stayed in my post for very long. Numbers matter. Any responsible Government must look ahead: how many schools, hospitals and homes do we need? It is not an irrelevant consideration. That is why my party had a clear manifesto commitment to build 300,000 houses a year.

Yes, we should do more about brownfield sites, but if every brownfield site in England identified on all the local authority brownfield registers was built on to full capacity, this would provide for only just under one-third of the 4.5 million homes needed over the next 15 years.

I am grateful to the Minister, who has been very patient. She has not been able to move in the direction that I had hoped, so I want to restore the position to what it was when the Bill was introduced, before the Government amended housing policy in December. I want to enable the commitment of 300,000 houses that we gave at the last election to be met, and I want to give the elected House an opportunity to consider the major changes in government policy announced since the Bill was introduced. I wish to test the opinion of the House.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 4th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Southwark]

My Lords, I also rise to speak to Amendment 198 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, whom it is an honour to follow this evening, the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, who sends her apologies that she cannot be here to take part in this debate.

The urgent need to address declining health in the United Kingdom, as well as the widening health inequalities associated with this, cannot be overstated. We have heard many times about the staggering difference in healthy life expectancy, which was already up to 19 years before the pandemic. We must not become numb to such statistics or the reality that underlies them. Amendment 198 is about using the opportunity that this Bill provides to reform the planning system and thereby enable practical action by local authorities to tackle these disparities.

The social determinants of health are familiar and better understood than they have ever been. We know that where we live and the environment that we find ourselves in can have a significant impact on our health and, in extreme cases, fatal consequences. If we are serious about tackling health inequalities, our planning system is a key and necessary lever for better outcomes. By designing spaces better and putting in the right features that are proven to improve health and well-being, we can make huge improvements to the state of health. As we have heard, local planners can improve this in a number of ways, including site allocation, working with developers to improve applications and setting a vision for what facilities are in an area. This amendment would give planners a framework to deliver in each and every neighbourhood infrastructure that boosts everyone’s health and well-being.

When a similar amendment was debated in Committee, the Minister, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said that the National Planning Policy Framework

“contains policies on how to achieve healthy, inclusive and safe places”.—[Official Report, 27/3/23; col. 77.]

However, the fact that these policies already exist makes a strong case for this amendment, for the simple reason that little has changed. We are still building housing where the basics are not right, such as estates where there are not even any pavements. The National Planning Policy Framework is clearly not a strong enough tool for what we want to achieve. If we are to level up our health, we need to level up our planning system; that means being clear about our priorities within it right across the country.

In a report published by Sustrans, the custodians of the National Cycle Network in 2022, 64% of planners said that they needed more robust regulation or guidance to prioritise health and well-being. A statutory duty to reduce health inequalities in the planning system will give planners the levers that they need to consider health outcomes in a bespoke way that suits local areas, without these being forgotten amid the other requirements that must necessarily be followed.

I also support the “healthy homes” amendments—Amendments 191A, 191B and 286—in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, who has already spoken. They seek to use the role that planning can play in reducing adverse health outcomes by preventing the creation of inadequate housing, which is an all-too-present reality in the current pressure to build more housing.

In conclusion, I hope that we will consider giving planners these tools today, as while we wait the gap, not only in life expectancy but in healthy living, is increasing. To deny these amendments is to store up dangerous and expensive problems for the future. The answer to increased housebuilding lies elsewhere.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I have added my name to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, and commend his tenacity in pursuing this issue through his Private Members’ Bill and all the stages of this legislation. I shall add a short footnote to his speech.

After the debate in Committee and the very helpful meeting that we had with Ministers, on 25 May the Minister wrote a comprehensive nine-page reply taking the objectives of the amendments one by one and outlining how, in the Government’s view, existing provisions reflected them. We can discuss whether there is total alignment between current provisions and what is in the amendments, but the letter asserting this and existing statements from the Minister in our debates indicate that there is not a lot of distance between what the Government say that they want and what is proposed, which would help to bridge the gap that the right reverend Prelate has just referred to.

The letter dated 25 May said: “Following on from our meeting, I thought that it would be helpful to set out where the principles of healthy homes are already being considered and addressed through existing laws, systems, policy and guidance”. I want to make two points, picking up the key objections to the amendment that were made by my noble friend Lord Howe in his reply to the debate on 27 March. He said, referring to the noble Lord, Lord Crisp:

“Where we had to part company with him—and, I am afraid, must continue to do so—was on the extent to which new legislation should duplicate legal provisions already in place, and, to the extent that it does not duplicate it, how much more prescriptive the law should be about the way in which new housing is planned for and designed”.—[Official Report, 27/3/23; col. 76.]


On the first objection, I would prefer “consolidate” to “duplicate” to describe the impact of the amendments. Annex A to the letter dated 25 May explains that the relevant policies in the amendments are set out in no less than 11 groups under the heading “Healthy Homes Principles”. These groups in turn referred to 28 different chapters or clauses in building regulations, design codes, the NPPF, planning legislation and orders. The amendment brings all those provisions together under one overarching umbrella and provides what is currently missing: namely, a clear statement of government policy on healthy homes all in one place, breaking down the silos between all the government departments involved—the Department of Health and Social Care, the Home Office, the Department for Transport, the Department of Energy and Climate Change, Defra and DLUHC. The 28 different references would then have a coherence which is lacking at the moment and which would be embodied in the statement that the Secretary of State has to make, underlining the commitment to healthy homes.

The second objection was that the amendment was prescriptive. However, the wording of paragraph 4 in the new schedule proposed in Amendment 191B gets round that objection in that it uses “should” instead of “must” throughout. The only compulsion is in paragraph 1, which obliges the Secretary of State to prepare a statement in accordance with the proposed new schedule. The groundwork for this has already been laid by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp.

I hope that my noble friend will reflect on these points and that his customary emollience will go one step further into acquiescence.

[Lord Ravensdale (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 280. I thank my supporters, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, and the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Lansley. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her engagement with me on this issue over recent months and for her letter outlining the position of the Government.

I will focus on the changes to the amendment since we were in Committee, where we highlighted the magnitude of the issue of embodied carbon, with 50 million tonnes of CO₂ equivalents a year—more than aviation and shipping combined, so it is a significant amount of emissions. When we consider the effort and investment that is going into some of these other areas, it points towards the need to do a lot more on embodied carbon.

We also set out that industry is ready. On an infrastructure-related bid that I am currently working on for the private sector, we are looking to set targets for embodied carbon and assess it in the design phase, something that we now do almost as a matter of course. However, regulation needs to catch up, to ensure that this is applied consistently and to seize the wider sustainability and economic benefits of this change applying across the whole of industry. Our amendment focuses purely on the initial reporting stage, whereby industry will be mandated to report embodied carbon for all new construction projects above a certain size; the subsequent stage, using data gathered in the initial stage, would be to set out actual regulated limits for embodied carbon in buildings.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 18th July 2023 Lords Chamber

Even in Committee, I do not think we looked at this issue properly. On page 431, in Schedule 12, under general regulations, the Government included a new provision that says that they may make provision treating the community infrastructure levy as if it were the infrastructure levy. All the flexibilities that are required are available in this Bill. We do not know yet what the infrastructure levy and new delivery agreements will look like, but they could incorporate many of the best features of the community infrastructure levy and the best features of Section 106—but they absolutely will require local authorities to have a charging schedule and require those additional developer contributions substantially to increase the availability of affordable housing. On that basis, it would be very remiss on our part at this stage to remove Clause 129 or Schedule 12 rather than giving us the opportunity to have those improvements in the structure of developer contributions. So I am afraid that I shall not support Amendment 68.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I add a brief footnote to what the noble Lord, Lord Best, said in speaking to Amendment 71, to which I have added my name, and to what my noble friend Lord Lansley has said about Amendment 311. I endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Best, and my noble friend said about the willingness of Ministers to listen to us throughout the process. The government amendments respond to the concern that we all expressed in Committee about the potential loss of affordable homes.

I shall pick up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Best, about the so-called viability loophole. What has been happening is that well-resourced developers, half way through a scheme, have turned to the local authority and said, “It’s no longer viable—and, by the way, we cannot build the affordable homes which were due to be built right towards the end of the scheme”. That left the local planning authority with the nuclear option of pulling the plug on the whole scheme or allowing it to go ahead and at least getting the open market houses. At the time, Shelter did some research, which showed that the use of viability assessments in 11 local authorities across England contributed to 79% fewer affordable houses being built in urban areas than would have built if the original agreement had been adhered to. Following that controversy, the Government introduced guidance and tightened up the rules in 2018; the new rules limited the use of viability assessments to reduce affordable housing to exceptional circumstances, such as a recession or similar economic changes. That was a step in the right direction.

My concern, which was echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Best, is that government Amendment 76 seems to go back on the 2018 changes and revert to the position that generated all the criticism about viability. I note in passing that the technical consultation criticised the current Section 106 agreements by saying that the

“planning obligations are uncertain and opaque … they are subject to negotiation (and can be subject to subsequent renegotiation), can create uncertainty for communities over the level of infrastructure and affordable housing that will be delivered”.

Is that not exactly what Amendment 76 does in referring to a development being economically unviable? It seems that what the Government are doing is virtually guaranteeing that no development will ever lose money, while the developer benefits from any gains above expectation. The levelling up Select Committee’s report expressed the same doubts last week.

I want to say a final word on Amendment 311, to which my noble friend Lord Lansley spoke. On 17 March, the Government published their technical consultation. It ran to 91 pages and asked 45 questions; it is not an easy read. The consultation ended on 9 June and the document said:

“Following the closure of this consultation, the government will assess responses. In doing so, a response will be issued that summarises the themes that emerged, before issuing a final consultation on the draft regulations after the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill achieves Royal Assent”.


This means that we are debating Schedule 12 in a vacuum because we do not know what its structure will be. I am afraid that this is a feature of too much in this Bill.

When it published its report, Reforms to National Planning Policy, the Select Committee in another place picked up the same point. It also said that we are going to have real issues if we run the infrastructure levy and Section 106 in tandem, leading to arguments and complications. I was not wholly reassured by what the Minister in the other place said in response to the Select Committee’s query:

“If they say that it is too complicated and ask to change things, we will consider that”.


I am not sure that that is a great step forward.

So, on both issues—viability and the absence of the structure of Section 12—I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to provide the House with some reassurances.

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, I will intervene briefly. I declare an interest as a chartered surveyor with some involvement in the development process.

I want to speak to the factor that links Amendments 71 and 94 and follows on from what the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, has just said. I have been in the past a technical operator of the dark arts of development appraisal. I would be much less charitable than the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, in my comments about exactly what goes on here; for instance, how land values under option agreements are arrived at and how, with a click of a mouse on a proprietary development appraisal computer package, the matter can then adapt to a viability test for the local authority’s community infrastructure levy or Section 106 contribution purposes. Noble Lords would be astounded at the way in which a yield change here and a cost base there, as well as the adaption of a timeframe or the alteration of a contingency allowance—I mention just a few means—can be used to alter significantly the entire outcome and colouration of what is claimed on the back of it. Further, all this is done by using the same primary data inputs and, unsurprisingly, there are two factors that developers will never reveal to you if they can get away with it. One is the land value that they paid, coloured as it is by all sorts of associated costs before it gets as far as a planning consent; the second is their construction costs, which are entirely opaque.

Alongside all this and of much longer standing is what I describe as the commoditisation of residential property, which started in the 1990s. It has since financed ever more of the items society wishes to have, in terms of affordable housing, infrastructure, schools et cetera. But that policy has created a consistent and ever more bankable asset within an enhanced lending sector. This results in the very unfortunate situation of driving up house prices and creating a model that is less than satisfactory. Core to this is the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stunell—transparency. Without it, none of this will be demonstrable to anybody, at any time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 95, I will speak also to Amendments 97, 287 and 293, which address recommendations in the report of your Lordships’ Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee on community land auctions—CLAs. I declare my interest as a landowner.

These procedural amendments will change the power of direction in Clause 133(1)(a), which allows the Secretary of State to direct that a local planning authority preparing a local plan may put in place a CLA arrangement. We are changing this, so that local planning authorities wishing to pilot a CLA arrangement should instead be designated by CLA regulations. These regulations will be subject to the negative resolution procedure to allow for an appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny of the selection of local planning authorities to participate in community land auction arrangements. We agree with the argument put forward by the DPRRC that the negative resolution procedure is more appropriate than the affirmative, because it will not lead to the delay of the implementation of CLA arrangements.

The policy intent of these amendments is to allow for the appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny over the selection of prospective piloting authorities. Any potential piloting authorities will need to actively volunteer to participate in CLA arrangements; they will not be forced to do so. These amendments remove any reference to a power for the DLUHC Secretary of State to direct in Part 5, and make associated changes to Clause 231 to ensure that the negative resolution procedure will apply to the new regulation-making power in Clause 133(1). I beg to move.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 96 and 98 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Lansley.

In answering a question last week, the Minister, my noble friend Lady Scott, said that the levelling-up Bill was a large one; she gave that as a reason for dropping the repeal of the Vagrancy Act. My amendment directly addresses that concern by deleting eight pages from the Bill: those introducing the untested concept of community land auctions, parachuted into the Bill at a late stage in the other place, hot from the bubbling vat of a think tank, without the normal process of cooling and maturing.

I say again how grateful I am to Ministers for their patience in discussions on CLAs and for the very comprehensive six-page letter received yesterday, addressing some of the concerns that I have spoken about.

One would have thought that a novel concept such as this one would have been subjected to some consultation before it appeared in the Bill: first, with those who have to operate it—namely, the planning authorities—and, secondly, with those who represent the landowners, who have expressed deep reservations about the proposal. So we were surprised to hear the Minister say, in winding up the debate in Committee:

“We will consult on community land auctions shortly”.—[Official Report, 18/5/23; col. 430.]


Over the weekend, I was reading the guidance issued in April last year for civil servants who are charged with developing policies such as this one. It says:

“Engaging with stakeholders as soon as possible gives them the opportunity to understand what’s being asked of the service team and why. It’s also a chance to build trust and understanding of each other’s needs and ways of working and lets them plan their time and involvement with the project”.


Clearly, that engagement with the stakeholders simply has not happened here. I am not blaming the civil servants; Ministers clearly insisted on this clause going in. The guidance then adds a warning to civil servants to

“think about what your users need, not what government thinks they want”.

Leasehold Properties: Managing Agents

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Monday 17th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I agree with the noble Lord. That is exactly what we are doing. The commitment includes raising professionalism and standards among property agents. As I am sure the noble Lord knows, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and RICS, which she is working with, will meet the Housing Minister to discuss a code of practice for property agents. I thank the noble Baroness for all the work she is doing on this, and I welcome her excellent stewardship of the independent steering group as we strive to promote best practice among property agents in future.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, the Building Safety Act has given leaseholders very welcome protection against the costs of making their buildings safe, following the Grenfell tragedy. But the legislation has an important defect, in that if any leaseholder subsequently extends his or her lease, they lose all their protection. I think my noble friend is aware of this oversight in the legislation, but when will she put it right and will it be retrospective?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, we are well aware of the significant issue concerning leaseholder protections where leases are extended or varied. A change to primary legislation is necessary to ensure the continuation of protection. We are looking to bring forward the necessary legislation as soon as parliamentary time allows. Obviously, compensation will be part of that discussion, I am sure.

Small and Medium-sized Housebuilders

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Wednesday 12th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I can tell the noble Baroness that I will look at her amendment.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, further to my noble friend Lord Swire’s excellent question, the number of sites with planning consent for fewer than 100 dwellings has fallen by 38% over the past five years. These are the sites most used by small and medium-sized builders. Is there not a case for the planning system to promote much more effectively the use of smaller sites, not just to help smaller builders but to strengthen and diversify the construction industry and accelerate the delivery of new homes?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My noble friend is right. That is why the NPPF includes policies to support SMEs; for example, it sets out that local planning authorities should identify land to accommodate at least 10% of their housing requirements on sites no larger than one hectare. That might seem large, but we also make it clear in the framework that local planning authorities should work with developers to look at subdivisions in those areas where we could help speed up the delivery of homes, particularly by SMEs delivering those homes.

Homelessness: Vagrancy Act 1824

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Monday 10th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, the Vagrancy Act, as I have said, is an outdated piece of legislation; I agree with the noble Baroness that it needs repealing. However, the House rules on admissibility of amendments are set out in the Companion; amendments we have consulted on that were related to repealing the vagrancy offences have not been considered admissible to the levelling-up Bill. We would not normally discuss the clerks’ advice in the Chamber, but I am sure that they will be very happy to discuss it in the usual way with her.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, an amendment was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Best, to the police and crime Bill to enable abolition to take place, and the consultation to see what, if anything, needed to be carried forward ended in May last year. Against all the commitments that have been given, are we really going to have the Vagrancy Act 1824 still on the statute book in 1924? Oh, I mean 2024.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My noble friend is right. We did consult when the Vagrancy Act was within DLUHC, and the Home Office is holding further discussions particularly with those stakeholders who are important in local authorities, such as the police. However, the anti-social behaviour plan, which was published last March, outlined further details of our plans to introduce new powers for local authorities and police to respond to begging and rough sleeping, coupling this with improved multiagency working between local partners so that vulnerable individuals receive the support they need. This is a complex issue, and further details will be set out in future legislation at the earliest possible parliamentary opportunity.

Homelessness: Homewards Initiative

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Tuesday 4th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

No; it has affected the economic stability of the whole world. We are working continually to try to get back to those Covid levels.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, like the right reverend Prelate, I very much welcome the commitment of the Prince of Wales to help end homelessness, particularly as the numbers of those sleeping rough are beginning to creep up again, having been reduced to near zero during Covid. I particularly welcome the commitment to make Duchy of Cornwall land available for affordable homes. Is this not an example that could be followed by government departments and other public bodies that have surplus land available?

Housing: Modular Construction

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Thursday 8th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I know that the noble Lord has been interested in this sector for many years. I assure him that the Government are taking this very seriously. We are focusing on removing all the barriers to growth. These are about insurance, finance, warranties and, as he mentioned, mortgages. It is all about stimulating that pipeline so that these companies can invest and keep those factories going until this becomes a normality in our housing system.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, has my noble friend read the government publication Modern Methods of Construction, published in September last year? It says:

“The government is committed to using its position as the single largest construction client to support the adoption of a more productive and sustainable business model”,


and goes on to say that there is

“a presumption in favour of off-site construction for relevant departments”.

What progress have the Government been able to make in using MMC for the prison and hospital building programme? If there is success there, might it not encourage the housebuilding industry to take renewed interest in MMC for homes?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

On my noble friend’s last point, that is exactly what we are doing: we are encouraging all the time through investment and support to help housebuilding. On other issues of building public buildings in particular, we want to encourage the take-up of MMC across the whole range of traditional building sites. We can do that by sharing across government. We have introduced a presumption in favour of MMC in our capital programmes, such as within the Department for Education’s school rebuilding programme and the Ministry of Defence accommodation programme. Significant progress has been made on schools and prisons programmes, and we are using those examples of best practice to help shape future policy for MMC.