Growth and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Wednesday 27th February 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Best]

My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 22, which was prepared by the Local Government Association. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, for introducing this amendment and explaining its purpose and value. My overarching concern is that the intention of Clause 6, which is to see stalled development up and running swiftly, will not materialise without substantial changes to this clause. Indeed, the knowledge that central government may overrule legal agreements between local government and house builders may encourage exactly the wrong response from some elements in the housebuilding industry, and this measure could backfire.

The Clause 6 procedure offers relief for house builders where they have paid too much for a site and now wish to be excused from their obligations to provide affordable housing. Amendment 22 would mean that only agreements already made could be addressed by going down this Clause 6 route. The practice of developers speculatively outbidding others—including housing associations keen to buy a site and fulfil the affordable housing obligations on it—would not be perpetuated into the future. It would no longer be possible for developers to say, “Let us gamble on house prices rising, but if they do not do so, we can go to the Planning Inspectorate and secure a release from our Section 106 agreement”.

In my most charitable moments, I can feel some sympathy for the small builder who is unable to work on a swings-and-roundabouts basis of some highly profitable and some less profitable site purchases and who unwisely paid too much for a site at the height of the boom some four years ago. The bigger house builders are currently doing very well. Persimmon and Bovis have just reported huge increases in profits of more than 50% and more than 60% respectively. Some smaller developers, however, may have been caught out in 2008 or 2009, thinking house prices would rise inexorably when they have been pretty flat outside London and the hot spots. Nevertheless, surely we do not want to encourage continuing speculation on the basis that, from now on, the state will bail out those who bite off more than they can chew. Any developer entering into a Section 106 negotiation at the current time is clearly doing so with their eyes open to the economic realities of the day. These negotiations make use of viability appraisals and the signal must go out to house builders that they can no longer sign agreements in the expectation that they will not really be necessary to honour those agreements because central government’s planning inspectors will set aside their obligations if the developers can show that they will not make a profit of 20% or so.

This amendment draws a line under state intervention in these Section 106 agreements from the date that the Bill becomes an Act. I strongly support it. Alternative amendments for a sunset clause three years hence seem to miss the point. It is now that we want people to get busy and get started on sites that they own and are currently stalled. Every time a local agreement to produce more affordable housing is set aside, households on low incomes waiting for a home are forced to wait longer. We should ensure that this happens on only the rarest occasions. I strongly support an amendment that would stop the perpetuation of the opportunity for developers to renege on agreements that they have signed with local authorities from henceforth.

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 28. I strongly support Amendment 22 and the principle behind it that only planning obligations agreed prior to Royal Assent should be included in the Bill. Amendment 28 is a sunset clause, and the Government have, through their own Amendment 32, accepted the principles of this. Our view is that no applications should be made under this section three years after its coming into effect. I accept that there may be a case to give power to renew or extend a subsection if economic circumstances demand it. However, I am not convinced that it should be open-ended and effectively give a power to the Secretary of State to extend it for as long as he would wish it to be extended. I am seeking from the Minister some clarification as to what the Government’s intention actually is with their Amendment 32.

I will be very precise about the questions to which I think the House should seek to secure answers. It would be helpful if the Minister could refine her amendment at Third Reading, so that any extension to the time limit should be for no more than two years from the date it is proposed. That would have to be before April 2016, so it would give an absolute time limit of five years. Secondly, would the Minister commit to presenting a report to both Houses before bringing forward regulations to extend that time limit? Would the Minister also commit to consulting with social housing providers and others prior to presenting that report, in order to inform its contents? Thirdly, will the Minister also commit to accepting the will of both Houses in any vote to extend the time limit?

The Government should still look to extend Clause 6 to include the full range of planning obligations. Not only would this challenge any perception that the Government viewed affordable housing as of secondary importance in planning terms; but if other obligations are causing the delay, that could remove significant impediments to that development. We will have a chance in a further amendment to look at that a little more closely, but I remain concerned that the Government’s amendment is too open-ended.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Shipley]

23: Clause 6, page 6, line 15, at end insert—
“(2A) An authority can only make a determination in accordance with subsection (3)(a) if it is satisfied, having regard to the development plan, that modifications to planning obligations other than the affordable housing requirements affecting the development or a reduction in the level of the community infrastructure levy payable would not be more appropriate.”

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, I declare my vice-presidency of the Local Government Association.

This amendment is designed to assess why only the affordable housing element of a stalled development should be considered. To make a stalled development economically viable, it is important to look at the full range of planning obligations, not just affordable housing. Sometimes it might be sensible to vary affordable housing obligations, but at other times other matters, such as the scale of highway contributions or a developer’s community infrastructure levy liability, might have a greater impact on a development’s viability. This approach would reflect the Government’s desire to ensure that planning applications are not acting as a barrier to new development and would give much greater flexibility to planning authorities in their negotiations with developers.

I have read carefully the draft viability guidance on Section 106 affordable housing requirements. It says that the application and appeal process will assess the viability of affordable housing requirements only. It will not reopen any other planning policy considerations or review the merits of the permitted scheme. I believe it is very clear that only affordable housing requirements could be subject to negotiation.

However, it also says at a later point in the draft that the timing and level of off-site contributions may also be considered. Will the Minister define an off-site contribution? I take it to be something broader than simply the affordable housing requirement and might actually include the community infrastructure levy. I would like clarification of that because later in the draft viability guidance it says that the relevant sections, Sections 106BA and 106BB, do not provide an opportunity to reopen policy considerations or requirements for planning obligations other than for affordable housing. Again, the matter is clear. Therefore I am left wondering what an off-site contribution actually is, as presumably the affordable housing is on site.

It seems to me to be common sense that local planning authorities should be given the capability to consider other planning obligations as part of a Section 106 agreement beyond simply the affordable housing component. It could be that if there were a successful negotiation on those other matters, it would enable more affordable housing to be built as a consequence. For the reassurance of the Minister, I had not planned to move this to a vote, but I believe that the issue ought to be explored so that we have clarification of what is actually intended and why the Government feel that they cannot permit other planning obligations to be part of the consideration of the renegotiation of a Section 106 agreement. I beg to move.

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

My noble friend Lord Shipley has raised an interesting issue, which has been raised at earlier stages, as to why only affordable housing is able to be renegotiated. He has also added to his amendment the question of the community infrastructure levy. Bearing in the mind the main purpose of the CIL, I would question whether that would be an appropriate reduction to seek. The CIL is after all intended to provide local authorities with the resources to pay for some of the infrastructure that would be necessary to support the housing requirements. It is true that affordable housing does not attract the CIL, but the rest of the housing development would. If one is going to have a community infrastructure levy, I would be very reluctant to see that negotiated down on the grounds of the developer saying that their scheme is not viable.

We have not had a full explanation of why only affordable housing is able to be renegotiated, because there may well be other obligations. I, too, read the sentence in the guidance about the other “off-site” obligations and I was not quite sure what that meant. When I first read it, I thought that it meant off-site affordable housing, but affordable housing is often not immediately on the same site as the rest of the development; it can be on a different site, so I do not think that that is what it means. I would welcome an explanation from my noble friend on the Front Bench as to what is involved. Hitherto, I have wholly supported the idea of renegotiation. Indeed, it has been the main burden of complaint of developers that they have agreed in different circumstances to affordable housing obligations and that it is that which makes their development unviable. That is why there has been, as was referred to earlier, a lot of negotiation going on with local authorities anyway. However, I am not aware of any local authorities which have negotiated reductions in other planning requirements that may have been necessary.

The draft affordable housing requirements guidance states:

“Timing and level of off-site contributions may also be considered”.

What does that refer to? I think that I took the guidance off my computer this morning, so it has come just in time. I would be very much against seeking to renegotiate downwards the community infrastructure levy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, I think that it is explanations that are asked for rather than anything else. I was asked what “off-site” provision was. It is exactly what it says. As noble Lords will know, when an obligation is entered into for affordable housing, in many cases that affordable housing is not on the main development site but is being provided elsewhere. All the guidance says is that any affordable housing that is not on the particular site can be taken into account. I hope that explains that. We discussed this quite a bit in Committee but it should be quite clear that this clause relates only to affordable housing. That is the only element that we are seeking to address within this Bill.

Local authorities can voluntarily renegotiate Section 106 agreements already. Under the regulations that have just been laid, they can be required to look at the whole aspect. Often the affordable housing is quite a large aspect of the development obligations and it therefore makes sense not to go through the whole galaxy of the Section 106 review, but to take account of the affordable housing and go through a quicker process.

This is, of course, taken into account against the background of the development plan and has to be reviewed under those provisions together with what was taken into account when planning consent was granted in the first place. The development plans include policies for the delivery of affordable housing to meet local needs. These policies are usually applied in the context of individual site viability. The effect of the clause is to help to deliver these policies by bringing forward viable development; it does not require a revisiting of the plan policies.

The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, made, I think, a moderate complaint about the fact that the proposals for establishing viability appeared only last night. I recognise that and I apologise that they were rather late. However, they are not very detailed and I think anyone with a lunchtime would have had an opportunity to read them. However, lunchtime does not exist in my life and maybe not in other noble Lords’ lives either, so I understand the noble Lord’s point.

The obligations that we are discussing were probably agreed at the time of the property boom and before the statutory tests for Section 106 were introduced in April 2010. Before then there was no statutory requirement to ensure that obligations were,

“necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms”.

Therefore, there may be capacity to revisit a range of obligations that were required before the tests were in place.

A full review of all aspects of an agreement could be costly and time-consuming for both parties. We wanted a streamlined review process as a backstop whereby viability is an issue. Affordable housing obligations are often the most expensive element of the Section 106 agreement and are agreed subject to viability. Research from 2007-08 found that about 50% of all planning obligations were for affordable housing so this is quite a significant area. That is why we have focused on only the affordable housing element of a Section 106 agreement in the Bill. For obligations agreed since April 2010, the statutory tests should ensure that the local authority can require only those items that are,

“necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms”.

Our approach will safeguard essential mitigation measures, such as transport, open space and education provision, which are required for the scheme to go ahead, and would be part of the overall Section 106 agreement but would probably take a great deal longer to negotiate. To open up the clause to these other obligations would add complexity to the review and could make the development unacceptable in planning terms.

I turn now to community infrastructure levy payments, which I am not sure the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, mentioned but my noble friend Lord Jenkin did. It is not very helpful to bring them into consideration here. The community infrastructure levy is non-negotiable so it cannot be taken into account as it cannot be renegotiated. The levy is up front—developers know what they will have to pay and it is predictable. It is set at the local level in accordance with local viability. Local authorities do not have discretion to waive or reduce the community infrastructure levy once the payments are set. The regulations make provision for exceptional circumstance relief but only subject to very strict criteria.

With those explanations and going back to the indication that this clause relates only to affordable housing in this Bill, that Section 106 agreements can be renegotiated voluntarily and that the regulations for post-2010 are now in place, I hope noble Lords will realise that there is a package here and will not press their amendments.

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply and for her explanation. I am sure that we share the aim of wanting to build more affordable housing. In accepting the Minister’s assurances about the Government’s desire to get housebuilding on-site, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 23 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, I support the amendment so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Best, and would like to speak in particular to Amendment 31, to which my name has been added.

I regard this as a public interest matter and I am not currently assured that this is being addressed adequately in the Bill. It seems to me that taxpayers have a right to secure clawback if, following a renegotiation, there is a rise in the value of the land. That clawback should be spent on affordable housing because it was the inability to build and the requirements around the level of affordable housing that caused the renegotiations to take place initially. There is a public interest issue here on behalf of the taxpayer, who should be able to share in the rise of the value of land.

On Amendment 31, it is reasonable that an applicant, having renegotiated successfully, must commence development within six months of the final appeal decision. Otherwise, if they do not get on with it, what is the point of that appeal having been made? It seems to me that the public interest requires a developer to get on with the building, having successfully renegotiated the arrangement.

I read very carefully the draft liability test and I am very concerned about the failure of the Government to define “commencement” as at present it can only be defined in terms of the case law that exists. I find Amendment 35 to be extremely helpful because it seeks to define what commencement means. Also, in terms of securing an outcome—renegotiation—which is in the public interest and in the interest of taxpayers, it seems reasonable to have a tighter definition of what commencement means.

[Lord Deben]

I wonder whether my noble friend could help me. It may be that I am extremely stupid about this, but I do not understand why it is not possible for the local authority, as part of its renegotiation, to insist upon these things in any case. Why can it not say, “As part of the agreement we want to do this, but the deal is you do actually get started in the way that we between us decide is a start.” Is there anything illegal in doing that?

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, I am grateful for my noble friend’s intervention. The Minister will be in a better position to reply, but it seems to me that, where there is agreement, these matters can be satisfactorily resolved. The problem arises when there is not agreement, as a consequence of which a decision has to be made. The case law definition of commencement will then be used; it will enable a whole set of minor things to be done and the developer is deemed in law to have commenced development. Amendment 35 defines much more closely what commencement actually means.