Clive Betts
Main Page: Clive Betts (Labour - Sheffield South East)Housing and Planning Bill
Clive Betts Excerpts
Mr Jackson
It says something about their priorities that, in five years, the previous Government built more local authority houses than the hon. Lady’s Government did in 13 years, with a much more benign financial regime. She fails to take into account how difficult brownfield remediation is and that about a third of local planning authorities do not have a local plan in place, despite the Government’s encouragement—the local plans have not gone through the inspection process. It is not either/or. Starter homes are a radical boost to ensure that more young people in work who need homes and are languishing in band 4 and band 5 council housing and housing association lists get the opportunity.
If a local authority has produced a decent plan—a structure plan or a deposited local plan—it will, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Mr Streeter), be in a position to effectively put in place intermediate housing and social rent provision working with registered providers. We are not in the business of squeezing that out. It is up to local authorities to do that.
The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Seema Kennedy) was right. We are not here to discuss the London housing Bill. This is about the whole of the country. In fact, this is a historic Bill because I think it is the first Bill that is subject to EVEL, so we did not have the dulcet tones of our Caledonian friends helping us on the Committee or on Second Reading.
The starter homes policy is about delivering homes to people who need them. If the hon. Member for City of Durham remembers, when the expert witnesses were challenged in Committee, they could not produce the figures, either on the day or afterwards, that showed definitively, beyond any reasonable doubt, that, from the Bristol channel to the Wash, in Chorley—Mr Deputy Speaker’s seat—in Leyland, in most parts of Lancashire, in Yorkshire and Humberside and in the east and west midlands, for most people on an average income—I accept that there is a difference with the national minimum wage and that the city of Durham is perhaps a different example—the homes would be affordable. Conservative Members on the Committee were not indulging, as the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) said, in some ideological pursuit. We were looking at the evidence brought before us. The evidence did not demonstrate, with all due respect, the hon. Lady’s position.
This is a radical Bill. I was disappointed by the lack of coherent, cogent alternatives from Her Majesty’s Opposition. May I end on a slightly cheeky note? I listened with interest to the hon. Lady’s plaintive cry that she was badly treated by the programme motion. My understanding is that the usual channels came to an agreement but, because of the incompetence of Her Majesty’s Opposition, they truncated or elongated various new clauses because they had forgotten to table the appropriate amendments. That is why they had to pad it out—which I am obviously not doing.
This is an excellent, radical Bill. It will deliver. It will complement other forms of tenure. We won the election. We have a mandate. I look forward to many more starter homes in my constituency and others throughout the country to give young people in particular the start in life that they deserve in the property-owning democracy that we should be building.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I want to raise three concerns about the Government’s proposals on starter homes. Obviously it is right, given the aspirations of many people to own their own home who currently cannot afford to, that we should look seriously at measures that enable that to happen. What we should be concerned about is whether those measures are good value for the taxpayer and have any unintended consequences. If it is such a good idea to help people on to the housing ladder, why do we not help the next group of people on to it by ensuring that the discount, or assistance, continues in perpetuity?
Mr Bacon
I have a great deal of respect for the hon. Gentleman, who talks a lot of sense a lot of the time, but he is now suggesting that only a small number of developers can affect the situation. Does he not understand the central problem, which is that most ordinary people cannot make the decision to bring forward their own projects? If that changed, developers would find that people had other genuine choices. There is a reason why 75% of people do not want to buy the products of volume house builders.
Mr Betts
I agree, but I do not think that that is the issue in this instance, because by and large starter homes will be produced by volume house builders.
These homes will be built instead of other housing, and the Government are almost ignoring the right of local authorities to have an influence on the assessment of housing need. When the Minister appeared before the Select Committee, he said that it would be up to developers and local authorities to negotiate deals, including deals on starter homes, on the basis of individual sites and planning applications. How can that fit into a framework in which the Government have a target—I think it is a target rather than an aspiration; no doubt the Minister will tell us whether that is the case—of 200,000 starter homes? If the Government have a target, they will have to use their powers of direction to ensure that local authorities deliver starter homes on each site that will add up to the 200,000 total. In other words, they will override the rights of local authorities to assess housing need in their areas and arrive at the best deal on each site, so that the best possible balance of housing is available. Starter homes will simply push out the other houses for rent that local people really need.
Chris Philp
Thank you for calling me at this late hour, Mr Deputy Speaker. I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I support the Bill’s emphasis on starter homes, and the corollary of that is that I oppose some of the amendments that dilute that emphasis, particularly amendments 40, 110 and 33. I believe that owner-occupiers on low incomes need all the help that they can get to get on to the housing ladder, and the starter home provisions will provide exactly that.
I was alarmed to note that between 2007 and 2013, the most recent period for which figures are available, the number of owner-occupiers in the country fell by half a million, and the proportion fell from 68% to 63%. The provisions in this Bill are designed to arrest that decline, and it is right that they do so. My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) referred in his closing remarks to the merits of a property-owning democracy, and we know that 86% of the public aspire to own their own home. There is no greater service we in this House can do tonight than help those 86% of our constituents realise their dream of owning their own home, and this Bill does that.
On the questions raised by the hon. Member for City of Durham (Dr Blackman-Woods) about affordability, I would make the following observations. First, starter homes by definition are 20% more affordable than current homes for sale, and that is a welcome step in the right direction; it is clearly an improvement on where we are today. She referred to deposits, too. The Government’s Help to Buy scheme allows people to borrow up to 95% of a property’s value. Even in London, even if the price is the maximum the deposit is only £22,500, and outside London it is only a £12,500 deposit. These are maximum figures; I expect many starter homes will be below these maximum figures and will be extremely affordable.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Brandon Lewis)
We have had an extensive discussion both in Committee and tonight, and I look forward to rest of tonight’s debate, not least as it might allow us to see if the current shadow Front Bench is still the shadow Front Bench by the time we finish.
We have had extensive discussion on the Opposition amendments on starter homes, particularly in relation to clause 1, and the hon. Member for City of Durham (Dr Blackman-Woods) has returned to that today, repeating points made in some of our previous debates. Since we discussed these clauses in Committee, our spending review has doubled our investment in affordable housing. The Prime Minister announced just yesterday that £1.2 billion of our starter homes funding will in the first instance support further brownfield site preparation, and that builds on the £36 million made available late last year.
Clause 1 sets out our position clearly—our manifesto commitment being delivered to build 200,000 starter homes. Clause 1 includes a clear definition to be applied nationally, and I hope the House will agree that we should not water it down through the proposed amendments. We strongly believe that new housing developments need to be supported by improvements in local infrastructure—this particularly covers amendment 32. Starter homes reforms do not change this. Starter home developments will still be required to have section 106 agreements to provide necessary site-specific infrastructure.
Turning to amendments 33, 34, 35, 37, 38 and 39, we need to be clear that these would remove the real benefits starter homes offer to young people—the very people we are looking to help. So I maintain that our model, as defined in clause 2, should stand to define our product clearly and support national delivery.
The hon. Member for City of Durham referred to amendment 39. I made it clear in Committee—Members can read what was said in Committee—that the regulations will specify that post-sale restrictions on sale and letting will exist and there is likely to be a period of five years before a starter home can be sold or let at open market value. I defend the right of any homeowner to have the same rights as any other homeowner to treat their home properly. If someone can never realise more than 80% of the value of their property, they lose the ability to move upwards in the housing market. This risks stagnation, rather than mobility. I want to incentivise young people and families to move onwards and upwards, and our model will enable families to do just that.
Turning to amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Mr Streeter), the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) and the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), I want it to be absolutely clear that the Government strongly support the need for a range of products to improve access to homeownership, and other products can perform a valuable function, too. It is for councils to consider whether these products should form part of their affordable housing ask on any given housing site. The clause will not prevent such developments from coming forward; nor will it prevent councils from securing other forms of affordable housing.
We are also introducing flexibilities in the Bill to encourage councils to build their own affordable housing. Let us be clear: 2014 saw the highest level of council housing starts for 23 years. However, we make no apology for prioritising support for low-cost home ownership and for making sure that we do what we can to get young people on to the housing ladder, rewarding their hard work and ambition.
I note the support for rent to buy, which is a product that we in the Government have supported as well. We will continue to focus on it, but at this stage I do not want to dilute our clear focus on delivering starter homes for first-time buyers. I accept that the need will vary across the country, which brings me to amendment 41. We need to be able to provide more starter homes across the country, and the outcome of our consultation will involve setting different requirements in different areas. However, I want to wait for the outcome of the consultation before I make any final decisions.
As I said in Committee, amendment 42 is unnecessary. Again, our consultation will seek views on the type of site that should be exempt from the duty, and I believe that it is right to await the outcome of that consultation. We will then publish a full range of exemptions. On Amendment 43, much of the information that the amendment proposes to have included is already reported. I want to reassure Members that we will consult on the proposed regulations relating to clause 5, and this will include details of the proposed monitoring reports.
On amendments 44 and 46, we are now in a position in which we can no longer afford to hold on to employment land indefinitely if it is not in productive use. I expect local authorities to continue to examine applications relating to exemption sites with the same rigour with which they examine other applications. I am therefore not persuaded that either of the amendments is required. If land is in active use, or if there is robust evidence that it could soon be in productive use for employment uses, a council will be free to consider it as part of the planning process.
Turning to amendment 45, I want to reassure Members that it is our firm intention that any compliance direction should be a backstop provision. We expect that provision to be used only rarely, but it will be an incentive to ensure that we do our bit to deliver these new starter homes for first-time buyers.
Mr Betts
On that point about direction, will the Minister tell me what freedom local authorities will have to assess housing need in their areas if they decide that, on balance, they need to provide more rented or shared ownership homes as part of a package relating to a section 106 agreement on a particular site?
Brandon Lewis
Obviously, local authorities can build more council houses. I would encourage them to use the headroom that they already have to build more social housing themselves, but they will continue to have the ability to negotiate with developers in relation to section 106, just as they do now.
On new clause 2, it is clearly important that we build new developments that can stand the test of time, just as our Victorian and other predecessors did before us. I do not believe that the new clause is necessary, however. We already have strong, clear policies on resilience, sustainability and design in the national planning policy framework, supported by building regulations. The new clause would impose additional and unnecessary burdens. I say this in the light of the fact that in more than 96% of the cases in which the Environment Agency has raised objections, those objections have been fully heeded in the final planning decisions. It is absolutely right that local authorities should take good account of the advice given by the agency on developments in flood risk areas.
Mr Betts
I thank the Government for taking up two of the proposals from the Select Committee’s report in the previous Parliament on rent recovery and civil penalties. That was something the Committee agreed unanimously. I see the hon. Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) in his place. He was a member of the Committee at that time. It is right to give local authorities a lighter-touch way of dealing with the less serious problems that may exist in private sector properties by introducing civil penalties and rent recovery. The idea that landlords should be getting public money when clearly providing a property that breaches legal requirements is outrageous. It is good that the Government are acting and legislating, I think with all-party support, to ensure that the money paid out in those wrongful circumstances can be properly recovered by the public sector and indeed by tenants where their money has been used to pay for rent for a property that has not met the legal standards.
I want to raise one or two issues mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Teresa Pearce) and refer to the Select Committee report. When the Committee published its report—I am sorry to cut slightly across my hon. Friend on this issue—we concluded that licensing schemes should be a matter for local discretion. We said that they were a useful tool in the armoury of local authorities to deal with particularly bad problems in areas with poor landlords and poor-quality housing, but we adopted a localist approach and said that in the end it should be a matter for local discretion. However, we did raise the problem—it is right that my hon. Friend raised the issue again—that many authorities chose not to take up licensing schemes, not because they thought they were a bad idea, but because the whole bureaucracy around the schemes deters authorities and makes it expensive to get them in place. I hope the Minister will have another look at that.
I speak from experience, not in my constituency but in the next-door constituency of Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough. A licensing scheme that was introduced in Page Hall has been very successful in dealing with the real problems caused by bad landlords and bad properties, but the process of establishing it involved a great deal of bureaucracy and money that could have been better spent on enforcement and attempts to deal with the inadequate housing situation.
Mark Pawsey
The hon. Gentleman led the production of the Select Committee report very effectively during the last Parliament. As he will recall, the evidence suggested that good landlords were happy to go on to the register, or, alternatively, were reluctant, but did so because they wanted to play by the rules. The rogue landlords, by definition, do not want to play by the rules and would not register in the first place. The process tends to be not terribly productive.
Mr Betts
I think that when authorities have been able to target resources at a particular area, go for the bad landlords and try to get them to sign up, the system has been relatively successful. I have had experience of one case, but there is a bigger case in Newham, where the local authority has been licensing all the private sector properties in the borough.
If the necessary resources are put in, a licensing scheme can be effective. The difficulty is that local authorities can charge only for the administration costs. They cannot charge for the costs involved in following up inadequate properties, and trying to enforce proper conditions in those properties. The problem that currently affects private sector housing relates not to the powers that local authorities may or may not have, but to the fact that, in many instances, they do not have the resources that would enable them to use their powers effectively. That is a real challenge that needs to be addressed, and on which we ought to reflect further. I do not know whether the Government have any more ideas, but rent recovery and civil penalties may help a little.
Let me return to another issue that was raised by the Select Committee, and to which the Minister referred. Why cannot local authorities keep the fines that are imposed on bad landlords for failing in their duties? It seems a little odd that in the less serious cases authorities can keep the proceeds of civil penalties, but in the most serious cases, which often cost the most in terms of local authority officers’ time—and, in my experience, authorities often do not recover the costs when they go to court—the fines go back to the central Exchequer. What is the Government’s problem with allowing authorities that are involved in the most serious cases, with the greatest costs, to keep the fines that are levied?
Catherine West
In some instances, particularly in London boroughs, it is so lucrative to be a landlord that the civil penalties are not enough of a disincentive. People can be in court at one moment and building another shoddy flat at the next. They will simply pay the fine, because ultimately it will represent only a tiny proportion of their profit.
Mr Betts
That is true. I am pleased that the Government seem to want to increase the fine levels. I hope that eventually the banning orders will kick in, and a number of civil penalties will be imposed over a period. That is the intention of one of the amendments, and it, too, is welcome. I think that banning orders will have an impact if they are properly effective, along with other measures in the Bill that will help to deal with rogue landlords.
Before I say a few words about the ombudsman, I want to say something about new clause 5, which we heard about from the hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Dame Angela Watkinson). I think that it is an excellent measure, and the Government ought to think seriously about it. It is very simple, and would be very light on public sector resources. Indeed, it would probably save public money, because it would not be necessary to chase around finding out who owned properties when there was a problem with them. The information would be readily available, at little cost to the public purse. Local authorities would be able to do their jobs more effectively, as they would spend less time trying to find out who was the owner or the letting agent. Tenants often do not have that information, but by the time a problem occurs, authorities want to have it to hand so that they can take immediate action against those who are responsible.
The hon. Lady also put her finger on a very important point. In the case of the licensing scheme in Sheffield, I suddenly realised why landlords were so opposed to it. There was, of course, the possibility that local authorities would carry out more inspections of their properties, find faults and take action, but what most disturbed them, in my view, was that HMRC would know that a property was tenanted and rent was being paid to someone, and one or two further inquiries might follow. I think that is absolutely right: that should be done—the taxpayer ought to be paid their tax on rent that is collected. Very often in these properties there are not proper tenancy agreements, the rent is simply paid cash in hand and the taxpayer receives none of it. Having that information in the public domain that can be used for any proper purpose—I hope that would include being able to pass it on to the tax authorities—has another benefit to the public purse. That is a very sensible and simple measure, and I hope the Government will be prepared to support it.
Finally, I hope the Government will give further thought to the housing ombudsman covering the private rented sector. I know there may be the view that this is a private sector and therefore a public sector ombudsman should not be looking at these matters, but let us draw a comparison. The coalition Government extended the remit of the local authority ombudsman to cover social care homes even when the person in those homes was paying for themselves, so there was no direct public sector involvement. That remit was extended to social care homes because it was thought that it was somehow wrong that some people could not take an element of social care provision to the ombudsman for a decision while other people in the same care home could.
For example, if a local authority discharges its homelessness duty by allocating or placing someone in a private sector property and it all goes wrong, the local authority element of that, where it makes the placement, would presumably be under the jurisdiction of the local authority ombudsman. However, if it is the private landlord who does not deal with that tenancy properly, there would be no remit for the tenant to go to any ombudsman at all. Once the local authority discharges its duty and makes provision to have someone housed in the private sector, at some point in the transfer from someone being homeless to them receiving a private tenancy, there would be a switch from an individual having recourse to go to an ombudsman and their not having recourse to do so. There could be great dispute about whether the action of allocating someone a house in the private sector as part of a local authority’s homelessness responsibility was covered by an ombudsman or not. I therefore hope that the Government will reflect on the fact that this may be one of the gaps in the provision of the ombudsman’s service. I know that they are looking overall at reconfiguration of the service, and they might give some thought to this extension as a sensible way of covering one of the gaps.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I wish to make some comments about the Government new clauses on deregulation of housing associations and ask the Minister some questions.
In Committee we raised several probing amendments relating to clause 78, which covered reducing regulation but did not specify what measures the Government would be taking to deregulate the social housing sector. Of course, we understand that the Government are now seeking, under amendment 4, to leave out clause 78 and replace it with new clause 6 and new schedule 1. As the Minister said in Committee in response to probing amendments:
“I intend to introduce a package of measures on Report. The ONS announced the reclassification decision on 30 October, which has not yet given us the time to carefully work through a package in time for the Committee.”––[Official Report, Housing and Planning Public Bill Committee, 1 December 2015; c. 465.]
This is our first opportunity to see these new measures.
We welcome replacing the general with the specific. Removing clause 78 and replacing it with new clause 6 and new schedule 1 is primary legislation. Clause 78 gave Ministers a sweeping open power to repeal regulations affecting housing associations. At least new clause 6 and new schedule 1 have the merit of being precise—but they are very long. In total, the new clauses and schedules in this group amount to 34 pages of new legislation—almost a quarter as long as the Bill itself. They were tabled close to the deadline for debate on Report, and over the Christmas recess, so there is no way that this House, or the organisations and experts that have a direct interest in these provisions, can properly scrutinise or challenge the Government on the content of this newly introduced legislation. We can see that the new clauses and new schedule contain several elements that address some of the issues raised by the ONS as part of the reclassification of housing associations. They will address the issues through the removal of the Government’s consent power over how housing associations hold their assets.
Mr Marcus Jones
I shall try to keep my comments brief while I address as many of those points as I can. I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Dame Angela Watkinson) for tabling her new clause to require a local authority to request tenure information from residents, owners and managing agents whenever the authority requests council tax information. Like my hon. Friend, I am supportive of ensuring that local authorities have the tools necessary to tackle rogue landlords in the private rented sector in their areas. The Government are committed to promoting a strong, professional private rented sector in which good landlords can prosper and hard-working tenants can enjoy decent standards and receive a service that represents value for money for their rent.
I am sympathetic to my hon. Friend’s proposal, but we need to be mindful that we are increasing the tools that local authorities can use by requiring tenancy deposit protection schemes to provide tenancy deposit information, when requested, to local housing authorities and other relevant bodies in England, as set out in part 5 of the Bill. As my hon. Friend knows, local authorities already have powers in existing and draft legislation to seek information on housing tenure, through the Local Government Finance Act 1992 and the Housing Act 2004, as well as through Land Registry and housing benefit data. It will be important to establish why local authorities are not already using the powers they have at their disposal. I am therefore pleased to tell my hon. Friend that I propose to set up a working group to examine this important issue. The group will include experts from the sector, such as landlords, local authorities and the Local Government Association, and will report back to Ministers within three to six months. Given my hon. Friend’s strong interest in this area, I would like to invite her to be part of that working group.
Mr Betts
It is good that the Minister has an interest in pursuing the ideas that the hon. Lady has raised, but if the group reports back in three to six months, that means that this Bill will be passed without these changes being introduced. If the working group came up with the view that these proposals were needed, what is the earliest reasonable date by which they could be implemented?
Mr Jones
I thank the Chairman of the Select Committee for that question. We first need to establish whether or not primary legislation is required, and we also need to establish exactly why local authorities are not using the powers they currently have at their disposal. That is what we intend to do, and it is why we have set up the working group. From that work, we will consider what measures are necessary—or not—to take forward the proposal made by my hon. Friend.
Mr Betts
I understand that there might be a need to establish why local authorities are not using powers they already have. Is the Minister saying to the House that local authorities currently have all the powers that are contained in the new clause proposed by the hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Dame Angela Watkinson)?
Mr Jones
The significant difference in my hon. Friend’s new clause is that there is a compulsion on local authorities to obtain the information that it requires and then to act on that. At the moment, there is nothing to prevent local authorities from doing that, as they have the powers from the 1992 Act and they have the powers to use that information from the 2004 Act.
I shall move on to deal with new clause 55, which would require all local authorities to operate an accreditation and licensing scheme for private landlords. I do not believe that local authorities should be required to operate an accreditation scheme in their area. Accreditation is only of interest to good landlords who rent out decent accommodation, so it does not help to identify and tackle the criminal landlords, whom we are tackling through other measures in the Bill. In addition, local authorities are in the best position to decide whether there is a need for an accreditation scheme in their area. I welcome the Chairman of the Select Committee’s comments about this new clause, particularly what he said about the civil penalties that the Bill includes and rent repayment orders. Both of those were measures that the Select Committee sought in the last Parliament. He mentioned bureaucracy, but he does need to consider that due process does need to be followed and full public consultation needs to take place. That is a challenge in regard to the concern that he had, but he did make an important point about best practice. Some local authorities are doing this very well and we need to spread that best practice and examine how we can do so.
New clause 56 seeks to widen the housing ombudsman’s role to cover private sector housing and disputes between tenants and private landlords in London through requiring the Secretary of State to set up a pilot scheme, and then potentially extend it nationwide. As I set out in Committee, private sector landlords can of course already join the housing ombudsman scheme on a voluntary basis. Indeed, many landlords who wish to assure their tenants of the quality of their services do so already. The Greater London Authority would need to take a view on whether it would be appropriate for the housing ombudsman to expand its role in London given linkages with the London rental standard. Were these landlords required to sign up, we would not expect the same level of engagement or compliance with the process, and determinations would not be enforceable. We would risk increasing costs while the tenants of reluctant landlords may not see the benefit.
Nick Herbert
I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. The whole point of the policy of localism and neighbourhood planning is that people are told explicitly that they will have control and be able to determine where development goes and protect land that they do not allocate for development for a period of, say, 15 years of the life of the plan. If that is overturned very quickly, or even as they complete their plan or just before it is passed by a referendum, that undermines confidence in the whole policy of localism. That is bad for the policy of neighbourhood planning and for the Government’s policy of localism. It means a return to a system of planning by appeal and a developer-led system, which undermines support for new housing, when what we want is a plan-led system. For all of those reasons, the policy that allows speculative developers to creep in at the last moment and undermine plans is wrong. That loophole needs to be closed.
Developers have the right to appeal against planning permission that is refused, but the community has no right of appeal, which is part of the problem. The only recourse is to invite the Secretary of State to call in an application that appears to run contrary to national policy, but that is very much a last resort. Many of us have been grateful to the Secretary of State when he has been willing to do that because something appears to have gone wrong in a local area, but that is not a process on which we necessarily want to rely.
Before the election, I and others proposed a community right of appeal, which commanded a lot of support in this House. We are now proposing a more limited, neighbourhood right of appeal. That would give communities or defined people in a community, such as a parish council, the ability to mount appeals against speculative planning applications that are granted if they run contrary to a neighbourhood plan or an emerging neighbourhood plan that is very close to being completed. That would allow a form of redress and introduce a check into the system. It would send a clear signal to developers that the abuse of the neighbourhood planning process is no longer allowed.
A number of organisations, including the Campaign to Protect Rural England and Civic Voice, support the proposed neighbourhood right of appeal, which I think would create a sensible balance in the planning system and strengthen the very good policy of neighbourhood planning.
The second set of amendments contains amendments 80 to 87 to clause 115, which places a new duty on local authorities to report on the financial benefits of proposed developments. The problem with the clause is that it is not balanced by any duty to assess the costs of proposed developments. It undermines public support for new housing when people see that inadequate infrastructure is provided to support it. If people are already concerned about access to the local school of their choice, the congestion on local roads, the waiting times at their local GP surgery or even more immediate and profound things such as the ability of the sewerage system to cope with increased development, which has been an issue in my constituency, and additional infrastructure is not provided when new housing is built, thereby exacerbating those problems, it undermines the support for new housing. If we address the infrastructure deficit more effectively, it will build support for the new housing that is so desperately needed to give people the chance to get a foot on the housing ladder.
This set of amendments would simply require local authorities, as well as assessing the benefits of proposed developments, to assess the costs. Those costs would include the infrastructure costs. This proposal would not prevent development, but it would require a proper assessment of the costs, which is not otherwise being done. There is a problem in that local authorities have a shared responsibility in this area. The local authorities that are granting planning permissions or making plans are not always the same authorities that are responsible for providing the elements of infrastructure, which are often county councils. Policy is not joined up in that respect. There have been repeated attempts through guidance and assurances to address infrastructure concerns, but they have not been adequate to meet local concerns. These amendments would again provide a reasonable balance in the system.
I hope that the Minister will consider my amendments favourably. If he is unable to accept them, I hope that he will at least say what he proposes to do to address the very legitimate concern on the part of local communities that if development must come, it should first be in accordance with neighbourhood plans and secondly be matched with suitable infrastructure to support it.
Mr Betts
I signed the amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) on the necessity of demonstrating to communities how the infrastructure requirements of any development will be completed and carried out. I agree with him that the greatest concerns that people have about developments, whether they be in small villages, city centres or suburban areas, is what the impact will be on local traffic arrangements, whether local public transport will be provided, whether there will be sufficient capacity in doctors’ surgeries and schools, and whether the water and sewerage systems will be capable of dealing with the demands of the developments. All those things are extremely important. Currently, there seems to be no automatic way in which a planning authority has to reassure communities that those issues will be taken into account when it approves a planning application.
I draw the House’s attention to a report that the Communities and Local Government Committee produced in the last Parliament, in which we looked at the operation of the national planning policy framework during its first two or three years. Recommendation 11 stated:
“In setting out the reasons for approving development, decision-makers should fully explain the consideration they have given to its impact on infrastructure and explain how and where they expect the infrastructure to be provided, and to what timetable.”
In other words, if an application is to be approved, it should be clearly laid out that a planning authority has considered how the infrastructure associated with, needed and required by that development will be provided, who will pay for it, and to what timetable it will be produced.
Chris Philp
I believe the new clause makes it clear that the third-party providers will handle the processing but not the determination. The new providers will provide speed and efficiency, but decision making will remain where it currently is—with elected members and officers.
Mr Betts
If the hon. Gentleman thinks that the process and discussions between an applicant and an officer dealing with that application will have no impact at all on whether permission is given, he is mistaken. Process is important, and how an applicant engages with a planning officer can lead to an eventual decision on the application. Just because a committee may make the final decision and say yes or no, the idea that the process has no role to play in shaping that eventual final decision is fundamentally wrong.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that speeding up a decision and having another provider might mean that there is far less opportunity for local communities to be consulted and for proper research to take place on local history and conditions? Such things might not be done properly because the new providers are interested in speed and productivity as opposed to quality decisions.
Mr Betts
It is extremely worrying. The second point I was going to make is that we can all have views on occasions when the planning system does not work as well as it should, but nevertheless planning officers in a local authority have some understanding of their community—how it operates, what its needs are, who should be consulted and who should be involved in the process. My experience is that while there may be a minimum requirement for consultation, very often, as an application is considered, extra consultation is undertaken beyond that which is actually required to ensure that the views of communities and different interested parties are taken into account. My worry here is that someone parachuted in from outside, with no knowledge of an area but a track record of dealing with applications quickly, may not be as sensitive to the needs of a local community. If I was a local MP in an area with particular planning pressures and had concerns about getting those decisions right, I would be very worried about the scenario that is developing.
The point has been made that in the end decisions will be left to the planning authority. What does that mean? Many authorities now delegate a lot of less important decisions about schemes that are not major—individual extensions to an individual property, for example—to officers. Will decisions be delegated to an alternative provider, or will the alternative provider have to make a recommendation to a planning officer to take the delegated decision? The proposal is very unclear. What is the situation? If the delegated decision is taken by an alternative provider, the decision is not taken with any local democratic input whatever. Or, if a delegated decision is passed on to a council officer, who pays for the time of that officer? The fee will have all gone to the alternative provider.
Let us come on to the decision that goes to a committee. Who writes the committee report? Will the alternative provider write the report and put the pros and cons of the application for councillors to decide, or will it be a council officer? If it is a council officer, who pays for the council officer’s time? To what extent will there be liaison between the officer and the alternative provider? If it is not the council officer, an alternative provider is going to be appointed by the applicant to write the report for members of the planning committee. Does anyone think this might not affect the decision-making process? Of course it could.
Christian Matheson
Does my hon. Friend consider the possibility that the alternative provider might also be liable for costs if a planning decision was overtaken based on a recommendation it had given to the council committee that was incorrect in the first place?
Mr Betts
That would be a very interesting decision. When recommendations are made to councillors, very often reasons are given as part of the officer’s report. If councillors follow those reasons, they would expect them to have a defensible case if an appeal were lodged. If the advice to councillors was wrong, however, it may be the council that incurs costs. Who is liable for those costs? I am not sure that that is spelled out either.
As I understand it, there is a requirement to share information between an alternative provider and the council. Presumably, the council is taking no fee—all the fee goes to the alternative provider—so who provides the council’s costs? We have already heard that planning departments have had just about the largest cuts of any section of local government in the past five years. This is a service that has had major cuts. It will now have to continue to do some of the work on these schemes with no benefit at all from the fee, which means less resources for the planning department.
This matter ought to have been given a great deal more consideration. It has come in on Report with very little time to consider it. I have just raised some concerns about who, ultimately, will be responsible for extra costs, recommendations to the committee, writing reports and getting involved in delegated decisions. None of that appears to be covered by the clauses before us. I hope the Minister can give us some answers, because this is a worrying proposal that could undermine the accountability of the planning process to local communities.
Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)
I rise to support new clause 58, which is a brilliant amendment designed to fulfil our ambition to be the greenest Government ever. It would apply to only 345,191 grade II listed buildings in England, which would be freed to add insulation and solar panels and make other environmentally important improvements without needing to go through the listed building consent process currently required for any alteration to a listed building or within the curtilage of that building. It would free up hard-working conservation officers and reduce costs and red tape, while ensuring that all the historical features protected by the listing remain protected and under the current restrictions.
The new clause would also remove the curtilage catch-all and deter homeowners who can afford to turn up the heating but must not. Instead, they could do better things to help fight climate change and reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. It is only a tiny amendment, so, not surprisingly, it is opposed by Historic England, which fears that the odd feature it has forgotten to list might be, what—insulated? It knows that things have to change and that we need to follow the success of the climate talks in Paris with practical changes. If the Government have a better way of delivering the curtilage removal, I will gladly withdraw the amendment and thank them on behalf of all our children and grandchildren.
Brandon Lewis
This has been a worthwhile and an interesting debate. The comments of the hon. Member for City of Durham (Dr Blackman-Woods) about the amendments were a bit rich, given that we had made changes and allowed extra time in Committee for her and her colleagues, and bearing in mind that we tabled the amendments back in December. Her comments on Opposition amendments repeated conversations that we had in Committee, so I do not intend to rehearse those and detain the House further on issues that we have already discussed.
On Opposition new clause 57, I made it clear in Committee that we need a radical shift in the way the housing market supports young first-time buyers so that we do not condemn a whole generation to uncertainty and insecurity. That is why we want to see 200,000 new starter homes built over this Parliament exclusively for young first-time buyers at a minimum of a 20% discount on open market value to help them into low cost home ownership.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin) for his contribution. I understand the points that he made and I will take them on board and review them along with my ministerial colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (James Wharton), who I know will be willing to meet him and interested bodies to discuss how we can take matters forward in an appropriate way.
I listened carefully to the arguments put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill). He is a respected former Minister in my Department with a wealth of experience and expertise. I believe that his concerns are addressed by provisions in existing legislation, but I am very willing to meet him and interested bodies, such as the CLA, to discuss making sure that the provisions in place are adequate.
I also welcome the comments from my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) on ensuring that communities have a strong voice in planning. My right hon. Friend focused, in particular, on infrastructure. He is quite right to draw attention to the cost of development, so I thank him for doing so. It is right that new development should be supported by an appropriate level of infrastructure and that developers should provide support to put that in place. That is what the negotiations on section 106 and the community infrastructure levy are for. We would expect any significant infrastructure that would be needed to support a proposed new development to be a material consideration for the planning decision, and therefore covered in detail in planning reports for a local authority. We would therefore expect the costs associated with putting the necessary infrastructure in place to be covered.
I believe that the concerns expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs about neighbourhood plans are a clear indication of the strength of feeling that people have about ensuring that their voices are heard. I very much appreciate the intention of the amendment, as the Government place great importance on neighbourhood plans. However, I hope that I can convince him and other colleagues that these amendments are not necessary at this stage.
Neighbourhood plans give communities the power to shape the development of their area. When a neighbourhood plan is made, it becomes part of the development plan and attains the same weight in law as a local plan, as it forms the basis for decisions on planning applications. The law is clear: decisions should be made in accordance with the development plan, with material considerations taken into account. The national planning policy framework is also very clear. It states:
“Where a planning application conflicts with a neighbourhood plan that has been brought into force, planning permission should not normally be granted.”
That is well understood by local planning authorities.
I want to be clear that a “made” neighbourhood plan is a clear indication of a community’s vision for its local area, as my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) has outlined, and it should be respected as such. I would expect local authorities and the Planning Inspectorate to give due weight to neighbourhood plans as they progress towards adoption. The NPPF itself is clear that the more advanced the plan, the greater the weight that may be given to it. Communities have their say throughout the local and neighbourhood plan-making process. Indeed, neighbourhood have the ultimate say with their referendum. Their views must be considered when decisions are taken on applications. The Bill speeds up and simplifies that neighbourhood planning process, which underlined the importance we place on it.
The system is therefore already geared towards ensuring that communities’ views are taken into account, and local authorities must respect that. If communities are concerned that their plans are not being respected as they should be, the Secretary of State has powers to intervene. I can confirm that the Secretary of State will continue to consider intervention to recover certain appeals where there is a made or submitted neighbourhood plan. I can further confirm that I intend shortly to lay a revised ministerial statement extending and confirming the current recovery criterion for a further six months. During that period, we will continue to review the measures. I hope that my hon. Friends who have spoken tonight and others who are interested will work with us and feed into that period.
The improvements that we are proposing in the Bill will strengthen and revitalise the planning system. They are a real shot in the arm, which will get new homes built with fewer quarrels and less delay. The changes that we are making will assist those who run into difficulties, for example when negotiating section 106 agreements, giving people clarity and security that homes given planning permission will actually be built, and built in good time.
We are continuing to set the bar as high as possible on how public land will be used. As the Prime Minister said on Monday, we will ensure that we get Britain building.
Brandon Lewis
Not at this stage.
These amendment will allow us to capitalise on our progress and ensure that public sector land and the planning system is fit for the future. I hope that colleagues will reflect on these comments and not feel the need to press their amendments to a vote. I commend our new clauses to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 29 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 30
Resolution of disputes about planning obligations
‘(1) After section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (planning obligations) insert—
“106ZA Resolution of disputes about planning obligations
Schedule 9A (resolution of disputes about planning obligations) has effect.”
(2) After Schedule 9 to that Act insert, as Schedule 9A, the Schedule set out in Schedule (Resolution of disputes about planning obligations: Schedule to be inserted in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990) to this Act.
(3) In section 106 of that Act, in subsection (1), for “and sections 106A to 106C” substitute “, sections 106A to 106C and Schedule 9A”. —(Brandon Lewis.)
This new clause inserts a new section 106ZA in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which gives effect to new Schedule 9A to that Act. Schedule 9A is set out in new Schedule NS4. The new Clause also makes a consequential amendment.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 31
Planning obligations and affordable housing
‘(1) After section 106ZA of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (inserted by section (Resolution of disputes about planning obligations) above) insert—
“106ZB Enforceability of planning obligations regarding affordable housing
(1) Regulations made by the Secretary of State may impose restrictions or conditions on the enforceability of planning obligations entered into with regard to the provision of—
(a) affordable housing, or
(b) prescribed descriptions of affordable housing.
(2) Regulations under this section—
(a) may make consequential, supplementary, incidental, transitional or saving provision;
(b) may impose different restrictions or conditions (or none) depending on the size, scale or nature of the site or the proposed development to which any planning obligations would relate.
Paragraph (b) is without prejudice to the generality of section 333(2A).
(3) In this section “affordable housing” means new dwellings in England that—
(a) are to be made available for people whose needs are not adequately served by the commercial housing market, or
(b) are starter homes within the meaning of Chapter 1 of Part 1 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 (see section 2 of that Act).
(4) “New dwelling” here means a building or part of a building that—
(a) has been constructed for use as a dwelling and has not previously been occupied, or
(b) has been adapted for use as a dwelling and has not been occupied since its adaptation.
(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend this section so as to modify the definition of “affordable housing”.”
(2) In section 333 of that Act (regulations and orders), after subsection (3) insert—
“(3ZA) No regulations may be made under section 106ZB unless a draft of the instrument containing the regulations has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”” —(Brandon Lewis.)
The section inserted in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 by this new clause confers power to make affirmative-resolution regulations about obligations entered into under section 106 of that Act with regard to affordable housing, and defines “affordable housing” so as to include starter homes (see Chapter 1 of Part 1 of the Bill).
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 43
Processing of planning applications by alternative providers
‘(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for a planning application that falls to be determined by a specified local planning authority in England to be processed, if the applicant so chooses, not by that authority but by a designated person.
(2) The regulations must provide that the option to have a planning application processed by a designated person—
(a) does not affect a local planning authority’s responsibility for determining planning applications, and
(b) applies only until a specified date.
(3) The regulations may provide that—
(a) they apply only to planning applications for development of a specified description;
(b) designations of persons by the Secretary of State (see subsection (7)) may be made so as to apply only in relation to planning applications for development of a specified description.
(4) The regulations may—
(a) apply or disapply, in relation to England, any enactment about planning;
(b) modify the effect of any such enactment in relation to England.
(5) Sections (Regulations under section (Processing of planning applications by alternative providers): general) to (Regulations under section (Processing of planning applications by alternative providers): information), which set out matters that may be included in regulations under this section, do not limit the power in section 142(5) (to make supplementary provision etc).
(6) For the purposes of this group of sections (that is, this section and sections (Regulations under section (Processing of planning applications by alternative providers): general) to (Regulations under section (Processing of planning applications by alternative providers): information)), processing a planning application means taking any action in relation to the application (other than determining it) of a kind that—
(a) might otherwise be taken by or for the responsible planning authority, and
(b) is specified in the regulations.
(7) In this group of sections “designated person” means a person—
(a) who is designated by the Secretary of State in accordance with the regulations, and
(b) whose designation has not been withdrawn in accordance with the regulations.
The Secretary of State may designate a local planning authority.
(8) In this group of sections—
“local planning authority” has the same meaning as in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990;
“planning application” means an application for planning permission under Part 3 of that Act;
“responsible planning authority”, in relation to a planning application, means the local planning authority responsible for determining the application;
“specified” means specified in regulations under this section.” —(Brandon Lewis.)
This new clause would give the Secretary of State the power, by regulations, to introduce pilot schemes for competition in the processing (but not the determining) of applications for planning permission.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 44
Regulations under section (Processing of planning applications by alternative providers): general
‘(1) Regulations under section (Processing of planning applications by alternative providers) may make provision—
(a) requiring a designated person to process a planning application, except in specified circumstances, if chosen to do so by an applicant;
(b) allowing a responsible planning authority to take over the processing of a planning application from a designated person in specified circumstances.
(2) The regulations may make provision about—
(a) eligibility to act as a designated person;
(b) the capacity of a local planning authority to act as a designated person;
(c) actions to be taken or procedures to be followed—
(i) by persons making planning applications,
(ii) by designated persons, or
(iii) by responsible planning authorities,
and periods within which the actions or procedures are to be taken or followed;
(d) matters to be considered by designated persons or responsible planning authorities;
(e) performance standards for designated persons;
(f) the investigation of complaints or concerns about designated persons;
(g) the circumstances in which, and the extent to which, any advice provided by a designated person to a person making a planning application is binding—
(i) on the responsible planning authority, or
(ii) on designated persons other than the one providing the advice;
(h) cases where a person ceases to be a designated person or where a designated person is unable to continue processing a planning application.
(3) The provision that may be made under subsection (2)(c) includes provision requiring a designated person to provide assistance to the responsible planning authority in connection with—
(a) any appeal against the authority’s determination of the application;
(b) any application to the court made in relation to that determination.
(4) The provision that may be made under subsection (2)(f) includes—
(a) provision about the payment of compensation;
(b) provision for a designated person to be required to indemnify the responsible authority for any compensation that the authority is required to pay;
(c) provision applying anything in Part 3 of the Local Government Act 1974 (local government administration) with or without modifications.
(5) The regulations may confer powers on the Mayor of London or the Secretary of State in cases where a direction is given under section 2A or 77 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (“call-in” directions).”—(Brandon Lewis.)
This new clause provides that regulations under NC43 may provide for various matters including the actions and procedures to be followed during the pilot schemes, the eligibility of persons to act as designated persons, the setting of performance standards, and how conflicts of interest and the investigation of complaints are dealt with.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 45
Regulations under section (Processing of planning applications by alternative providers): fees and payments
‘(1) Regulations under section (Processing of planning applications by alternative providers) may make provision about—
(a) the setting, publication and charging of fees by designated persons or responsible planning authorities;
(b) the refunding of fees, by designated persons or responsible planning authorities, in specified circumstances.
(2) The provision that may be made under subsection (1)(a) includes provision giving power to the Secretary of State to prevent the charging of fees that he or she considers excessive.
(3) The provision that may be made under subsection (1)(b) includes provision requiring a designated person or a responsible planning authority to refund to an applicant some or all of a fee paid by the applicant to a designated person where the person or the authority fails to do a particular thing within a specified period.
(4) The regulations may authorise the making of payments by the Secretary of State to local planning authorities or designated persons.” —(Brandon Lewis.)
This new clause provides that regulations under NC43 may include provision for the setting, publishing and charging of fees by designated persons and planning authorities in pilot areas, and for the refunding of fees; it also includes power for the Secretary of State to intervene in relation to excessive fees.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 46
Regulations under section (Processing of planning applications by alternative providers): information
‘(1) Regulations under section (Processing of planning applications by alternative providers) may make provision—
(a) requiring responsible planning authorities to disclose information to designated persons;
(b) requiring designated persons to disclose information to responsible planning authorities or to other designated persons;
(c) restricting the uses to which information disclosed by virtue of paragraph (a) or (b) may be put;
(d) restricting further disclosure of such information.
(2) The regulations may make provision for designated persons or responsible planning authorities to be required to provide information to the Secretary of State.”—(Brandon Lewis.)
This new clause provides that regulations under NC43 may provide for information-sharing (about, for example, the planning history for land to which an application relates), may restrict uses to which shared information may be put, and may require information to be provided to the Secretary of State.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 57
Planning obligations: local first-time buyers
‘(1) After section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (planning obligations) insert—
“106ZA Planning obligations in respect of local first-time buyers
(1) When granting planning permission under 70(1)(a), or permission in principle under 70(1A)(a), for the construction of new dwellings for sale, the local planning authority may require that a proportion of the dwellings are marketed exclusively to local first-time buyers for a specified period.
(2) The “specified period” in subsection (1) must start no earlier than six months before the new dwellings have achieved, or are likely to, practical completion.
(3) “First-time buyer” in subsection (1) has the meaning given by section 57AA(2) of the Finance Act 2003.
(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations—
(a) define the “specified period” in subsection (1),
(b) define “local” in subsection (1), and
(c) the definition “local” may vary according to specified circumstances.
(5) The regulations in subsection (4) so far as they apply to local planning authorities in Greater London will not apply to these authorities unless the Secretary of State has consulted and received the consent of the Greater London Authority.”” —(Dr Blackman-Woods.)
This new clause would empower local planning authorities to impose a planning obligation when giving planning permission for the construction of new housing for sale requiring that a proportion of the housing is marketed exclusively to local first time buyers.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—