Neighbourhood Planning Bill Third Reading 4.41 pm
Amendment 1 Moved by Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth 1:
After Clause 6, insert the following new Clause— “Engagement by
examiners with qualifying bodies etc In Schedule 4B to the Town and
Country Planning Act 1990 (process for making neighbourhood
development orders), in paragraph 11 (regulations about
independent...Request free trial
Neighbourhood Planning Bill
Third Reading
4.41 pm
Amendment 1
Moved by
1: After Clause 6, insert the following new Clause—
“Engagement by examiners with qualifying bodies etc
In Schedule 4B to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (process
for making neighbourhood development orders), in paragraph 11
(regulations about independent examinations) after sub-paragraph
(2) insert—“(3) The regulations may in particular impose duties
on an examiner which are to be complied with by the examiner in
considering the draft order under paragraph 8 and which require
the examiner—(a) to provide prescribed information to each person
within sub-paragraph (4);(b) to publish a draft report containing
the recommendations which the examiner is minded to make in the
examiner’s report under paragraph 10;(c) to invite each person
within sub-paragraph (4) or representatives of such a person to
one or more meetings at a prescribed stage or prescribed stages
of the examination process;(d) to hold a meeting following the
issuing of such invitations if such a person requests the
examiner to do so.(4) Those persons are—(a) the qualifying
body,(b) the local planning authority, and(c) such other persons
as may be prescribed.(5) Where the regulations make provision by
virtue of sub- paragraph (3)(c) or (d), they may make further
provision about—(a) the procedure for a meeting;(b) the matters
to be discussed at a meeting.””
-
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for
Communities and Local Government and Wales Office (Lord
Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)
My Lords, before I speak to these important government
amendments, I wanted to take the opportunity to express my
thanks once again to noble Lords for their careful and
thorough scrutiny of the Neighbourhood Planning Bill. The
Government have listened carefully to the issues that have
been raised throughout these debates and have brought
forward amendments to address key issues.
The Bill that we now have before us is, I believe, a better
Bill as a result of the scrutiny of this House and the
wealth of experience that noble Lords have been kind enough
to share. I thank noble Lords for their diligent and
constructive approach at each stage. I am aware that a vast
number of noble Lords has contributed to the debate during
the Bill’s passage, but I particularly thank noble Lords on
the Benches opposite, and certainly the noble Lords,
, and .
I thank my ministerial team in the department, my right
honourable friend , and particularly my
honourable friend for their help and
support. Furthermore, I thank my noble friend, co-pilot and
Whip, , who
adeptly led on the compulsory purchase elements of the
Bill. Finally, I thank my officials, led by Simon
Gallagher, Susan Lovelock, Darren McCreery and Robyn
Skerratte, and the wider team, including my private office,
and special thanks too to Grace Smith and Alanna Reid.
I now turn to the government amendments in this group. We
had important discussions in Grand Committee and on Report
about neighbourhood planning, and in particular the process
for the examination of neighbourhood plans. My noble friend
Lady Cumberlege led this discussion, and I am personally
grateful for the way she did it. I should note that she was
not the only participant making those arguments, and I
thank my noble friends and and the noble Lords, Lord
Kennedy, and , for their
contributions. But I particularly thank my noble friend
Lady Cumberlege for her continued generosity with her time,
and for her commitment to working with my department
constructively to ensure that the practice of neighbourhood
planning continues to be in line with our collective
aspiration to empower communities to develop neighbourhood
plans. I am very conscious of the great pressure she has
been under and the grace and generosity that has
characterised her contribution to these important issues.
I want to set the amendment in the context of a number of
important steps that the Government are taking to meet the
concerns raised. I do so because the issues are too broad
to be addressed through legislation alone. Noble Lords will
recall that much of what needs to be done to address this
important issue does not require legislative intervention.
First, we will amend planning guidance once we have taken
into account the responses to the Housing White Paper
consultation, to which I will return, to clarify our
expectations of local planning authority engagement with
neighbourhood planning groups before and during the
examination process. Secondly, amendments to the Bill
tabled in Grand Committee enable the Secretary of State,
for example, to require authorities to set out in their
statements of community involvement how they will provide
advice or assistance to neighbourhood planning groups prior
to examination. Thirdly, my noble friend Lady Cumberlege
has raised the important role that local planning
authorities play in supporting neighbourhood planning in
their communities, so it is important that they have the
necessary resources. This month, we have written to local
planning authorities outlining the arrangements for our
continued funding to them to support neighbourhood planning
next year under the new burdens doctrine.
4.45 pm
Fourthly, we have resolved in the housing White Paper —I draw
noble Lords’ attention to paragraph 1.43 where this is set
out—that we will make further funding available to support
neighbourhood planning groups from 2018 to 2020. This sits
alongside the work we are doing to develop the tools and support
available to neighbourhood groups through our current support
package. I can also confirm that we intend to add to the existing
advice on areas such as housing need and site assessment a
specific toolkit to support communities wanting to use their plan
to allocate sites for housing. This will, for example, provide
advice on how neighbourhood planning groups can approach drafting
policies that plan positively and provide clarity on where
development will be encouraged or where it may be less
appropriate, and on the type of evidence that may support a
phased approach to housing delivery.
Fifthly, we are making it easier for those who are using their
neighbourhood plan to allocate housing to get technical
consultancy support. This includes access to a “health check” of
their neighbourhood plan by an experienced examiner prior to
submitting the plan to the local planning authority. Priority
groups under the Government’s support contract can apply for a
health check at no cost. All other groups can choose to use
grants awarded through the support contract to pay for a health
check.
In addition to these important steps, we are also encouraging
others to take action. I referred on Report to the commitment
made by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors to having
procedural practice guidance in place by the autumn for the
neighbourhood plan examiners it works with.
Before I turn to the Government’s specific amendment, I would
like to return briefly to the issue of phasing raised by my noble
friend Lady Cumberlege. Neighbourhood planning groups are already
able to phase development so that it matches their view of how
the community should evolve in response to the market. Where they
do so, it must be backed up by clear evidence as to why there
should be a restriction on when a specific site or sites should
come forward for development. It should be evidence based,
because we want to ensure that the proposals are deliverable.
We have listened carefully to the concerns raised by my noble
friend, and government Amendment 1 will enable the Secretary of
State, through regulations, to set out the procedure an examiner
of a neighbourhood plan or neighbourhood development order must
follow. It adds to the existing non-exhaustive list of matters
that regulations may address, which is set out in paragraph 11 of
Schedule 4B to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. In
exercising the power, the Secretary of State will be able to make
regulations that place a duty on examiners to provide information
to, and to hold meetings with, neighbourhood planning groups—the
qualifying bodies—local planning authorities and others, and on
the examiners to publish their draft report with their
recommendations. The amendment, set alongside existing matters
that regulations may already address, would give my ministerial
colleagues the power to achieve what my noble friend and other
noble Lords have pressed for.
We are consulting in the housing White Paper on what changes may
be needed to ensure that consultation and examination procedures
for all types of plan-making are appropriate and proportionate,
and I draw noble Lords’ attention to paragraph A.20 where this is
set out. The consultation closes on 2 May.
This amendment strikes the right balance between enabling reforms
that can improve the dialogue between neighbourhood planning
groups and examiners, while allowing for any future improvements
to procedures to be informed through the White Paper consultation
by those who will understand best how the current arrangements
are working in practice. More than 350 communities have had
direct experience of the examination process. Local planning
authorities will have worked with these communities and will have
been responsible for arranging the examinations of the
neighbourhood plans and any contracts with the examiners. There
will no doubt be others with relevant experience, not least the
examiners of neighbourhood plans. It is important that the
examination process remains fair and open to those with an
interest but does not become adversarial. Again, the housing
White Paper consultation provides an opportunity for people to
express views on how we might best achieve that balance.
My noble friend Lady Cumberlege has previously spoken warmly of
the work my department has done to explore what a possible model
for the examination process could look like. I have considered
what additional material could be made available as a
contribution to the debate on the changes that may be needed to
the examination of neighbourhood plans. Today I have published a
discussion document on the Government’s website, GOV.UK, that
contains a possible model for how examinations could be improved.
This is expressed in the form of a process flow chart—I know that
my noble friend believes that this flow chart system is helpful;
I do too. The document is in the form of an edition of Notes on
Neighbourhood Planning, a regular series of bulletins from my
department published on the Government’s website and sent to more
than 1,500 organisations and individuals that have signed up to
receive it. I would welcome representations from noble Lords on
this possible model, alongside other contributions to the housing
White Paper consultation.
Amendment 5 seeks to replicate the changes proposed in Amendment
1. Amendment 5 applies in circumstances where a neighbourhood
planning group seeks to update an existing neighbourhood plan in
the streamlined way proposed under Clause 3 and Schedule 1 to the
Bill. This will ensure consistency for those examining a new or
updated neighbourhood plan.
I want to leave your Lordships in no doubt that we are taking
this matter very seriously, and to reassure noble Lords on the
timing. It is right that we then take time fully to consider
responses to the White Paper consultation, including the impact
that reforms may have on voluntary and community bodies and on
businesses. These amendments give the Government the powers to
act on the issues raised in our debates. Clearly, that would be
our intention. Noble Lords must allow us to continue to consult
more widely to hear more views, so that we can be sure we have
the right process. If there is consensus as a result of our
consultation, we can move swiftly to prepare regulations from the
commencement of this legislation. That would be our intention. I
beg to move.
-
(Con)
My Lords, I again declare an interest. I have a planning
application pending at the moment. I have taken advice from
the Clerk of the Parliaments and have been assured by him
that the sub judice rule does not apply in my case. My
other interests are in the register. I thank my noble
friend for his generous words towards me, but he is
absolutely right that many other noble Lords contributed to
the role of examiner. Their wise words also influenced the
tabling of this amendment.
Before I address the amendment, I will say a few words. At
Second Reading, which seems a very long time ago, I
acknowledged to noble Lords that my centre of interest was
really more health and family planning than town and
country planning. Your Lordships may consider that family
planning is more about denial, but my experience with this
delightful Bill has been the reverse. Through the work of
noble Lords right across the House, we have had a very
creative exercise. It has been serious; it has been
informed; it has been challenging, and in many respects it
has been collegiate.
The tenor has been set by the Minister and, as he has
referred to him, his co-pilot, my noble friend . We could
not have had a more courteous, more conscientious and more
willing pair of Ministers on the Front Bench. My noble
friend Lord Bourne has gone to great lengths to listen, to
test our arguments and to assess their validity. Where
possible, he has put down his amendments to improve the
Bill. I have no doubt that it has taken considerable
negotiation within the ministerial team, with the
involvement of the department’s lawyers and others, to
achieve these results. I thank him very much for it.
One of my noble friend’s amendments is before us now. It is
an amendment that I wholeheartedly support. Throughout the
passage of this Bill, I have banged on about the role of
the examiner. Intelligent, well-informed men and women have
taken on this difficult task while being trapped in a
system which is rigid, excludes proper dialogue, is not
inclusive and does no one any favours.
Understanding my misgivings about the current system, my
noble friend has with great generosity given me
considerable time to meet not only him but the department’s
officials. Again, I thank him for that. His officials have
been exemplary. They have been patient, have sought to
understand my concerns, have been forensic and have put
their considerable knowledge to finding a way through the
examination of a neighbourhood plan so that we are all
winners—the communities we seek to serve, the neighbourhood
plan makers, the local planning authorities, the
developers, the department and, not least, the examiners.
My noble friend’s talented officials have produced a flow
chart which clearly sets out the procedures to be followed.
It is a masterpiece. It is clear and concise, with no
weasel words and no ambivalence. This is the path to follow
when going about an examination of a neighbourhood plan.
The two amendments before us seek to put the flow chart
into the required legislative language. Of course, that is
necessary, but not all plan makers—especially neighbourhood
plan makers, who are volunteers, after all—have expertise
in this field, nor do they attempt to say so. The only
expertise they really have is to know their communities
inside out. They perhaps do not wish to pore over an Act of
Parliament, trying to decipher quite what was meant. So
this flow chart is an answer. I was going to ask my noble
friend how he would make the chart available. Today, he has
told me that he will put it on the web and make it
accessible to all who need to see it. I thank him for that.
As so often with amendments, the weakness with this one is
it depends on the making of regulations. When is that
likely to be? When will we see those regulations? Am I
right, as I believe I am, in thinking that all regulations
throughout the Bill are in the negative form? Can the
Minister think of some way in which he could give notice to
those of us who have been involved in the Bill of when the
regulations will be laid before the House? I know that it
is very easy to miss them, and a trigger would be valued by
many noble Lords.
In conclusion, I strongly support this amendment. It will
give those embarking on a neighbourhood plan a tool of
considerable worth.
5.00 pm
-
(LD)
My Lords, as we start Third Reading, I declare my
vice-presidency of the Local Government Association. The
Minister said that this was a better Bill for the work of
this Chamber and I concur entirely. The value of the
revising nature of this Chamber has been demonstrated in
the work that took place in Committee and on Report. I pay
tribute to the Minister and his officials for their
willingness to meet and to listen, and for the courtesy
they showed. The outcome is a much better and stronger Bill
than when it came to this House. I learned from the debates
we had that there is an appetite from all parts of this
House to promote neighbourhood planning. There is a sense
of common purpose about that which I strongly welcome.
I said at an earlier stage in the Bill that we need a plain
English guide to the planning system which the general
public could relate to. The noble Baroness, Lady
Cumberlege, talked about the flow chart which will all be
very helpful. Indeed, on the departmental website there is
a plain English guide to the planning system in general
terms. I am looking here for a plain English guide to the
Bill which will become a practitioners’ guide as opposed
simply to a plain English guide explaining what the Bill is
about. It should go into much more detail than we currently
have. I notice that the Minister talked about the plans of
the RICS to create further briefing materials for the
examiner of a neighbourhood plan. I welcome that but if we
are seriously to promote neighbourhood planning and achieve
many more areas, particularly urban ones, engaging with the
process, a practitioners’ guide would be extremely helpful.
Amendments 1 and 5 are very helpful and reflect the
discussions we had in Committee and on Report. I too pay
tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, for all her
work in this area. The Minister talked about her generosity
with her time and that is absolutely right. The amount of
time and effort that went into convincing the Ministers,
their colleagues and officials that this really is
important has borne fruit. These two amendments bring the
process of neighbourhood planning closer to those devising
a neighbourhood plan. The noble Baroness talked about the
planning system being rigid, and indeed it is. There are
good reasons why that is the case in terms of challenges
but, equally, it needs to be a system that is understood by
all those trying to engage with the process. In Amendments
1 and 5 we have the publication of a draft report by the
examiner and the potential for meetings to be held about
that draft. This is a major step forward and I welcome it.
I have two further points. First, there is the timing of
the regulations. The noble Baroness asked about that and it
is very important that we get some sense of when it is
likely to be. The Minister talked about the consultation on
the White Paper and the outcome of that. The consultation
on the White Paper is due to end at the beginning of May
but we tend to find that there is then a long
period—several months—before something happens. Of course,
this will be going over the summer period as well so it
could be even longer than that. I think I interpreted from
the Minister’s words —which included the word
“swiftly”—that it is going to be faster than that. I very
much hope that it will be, because so many of the helpful
things that are being proposed in the White Paper need to
be got on with as soon as possible. I hope that there will
be a timetable that will speed up the process.
We have not quite finished Third Reading, but I want to say
that the process of examining this Bill and getting it to
the point where it is in a strong form to pass Third
Reading is down to a great deal of effort by a large number
of people. I pay tribute in particular to the Ministers,
the noble Lords, Lord Bourne and Lord Young, for their
support for this process, which has been hugely
appreciated.
-
(Lab)
My Lords, I join the Minister and the noble Lord, , in paying tribute
to the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, for her very
thoughtful and constructive—and somewhat exhaustive
—approach to the deliberations on the Bill. It has been a
pleasure to work with both the Ministers, but particularly,
if I may say so, with the noble Lord, Lord Bourne. I make
that point having discovered recently that he, like me, is
a great fan of Leicester City; in my case, it is my second
team. I rather hope we might be playing in the same league
next season and I hope that will be the Premiership. In
that event, perhaps the noble Lord would care to accompany
me to a match, when naturally Newcastle will expect to beat
my other team.
The substantive issue this afternoon is not the fate of
either of those teams but the drawing to conclusion of the
Bill. It has been a pleasure to work in such a constructive
way with both Ministers, but principally, on the major part
of the Bill, with the noble Lord, Lord Bourne. He has
listened carefully and been very constructive in his
approach. Indeed, the whole experience has been a vast
improvement on the dreadful time we had with the Housing
and Planning Act last year. That is no reflection at all on
the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, who struggled mightily
to retain her sanity and promote ours during the course of
that legislation.
I have one or two questions about Amendment 1. Proposed new
sub-paragraph (3)(d) says that a meeting should be held
following the issuing of invitations, which are outlined in
proposed new sub-paragraph (3)(c). Is that a meeting with
an individual, or is it envisaged as a public meeting in
which other interested parties would be involved? There
might be a number of people who make submissions; there
might be only one or two. Would that meeting be just with
those who make the contact, or will it be on a broader
basis? The definition of “persons” is slightly mysterious.
It talks about,
“the qualifying body … the local planning authority”—
that is obvious—
“and ... such other persons as may be prescribed”.
Can the Minister indicate what is envisaged by that rather
muffled description?
Then there is the question of the regulations. Will the
regulations themselves be subject to consultation? The
noble Lord, , referred to
consultation. Will the specific regulations in relation to
this amendment be subject to consultation in the way that
the Minister has described generally the consultation which
will take place on other matters?
Having said that, and while I wait with anticipation to
hear the Minister’s response, again I congratulate him and
the noble Lord, Lord Young, on the way they have conducted
this matter. I look forward to that degree of co-operation
continuing over the secondary legislation that will follow.
It is very important that the Bill should go forward into
practice in a way that, frankly, we have not yet seen
adequately with the Housing and Planning Act 2016. I hope
that we can learn from that experience and carry the Bill
forward in the constructive way that Members of all sides
have sought to treat it.
-
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have participated in the
debate on these two amendments. First, I thank once again
my noble friend Lady Cumberlege for the gracious way that
she has approached this, and for her kind words in
welcoming the amendment and the flow chart. I suspect that
her kind words about the role of the officials in the flow
chart will have its cost in terms of drinks and cakes;
nevertheless, I thank her very much indeed for those kind
comments. I can confirm to her and to other noble Lords
that the regulations will be subject to the negative
procedure which, given the weight of business we will have
as a consequence of the EU withdrawal process, is welcome
news.
I thank the noble Lord, , once again for his
kind words and very much agree that this is a better Bill
because of the scrutiny that has come from all parts of the
House. I agree that there is support for the neighbourhood
planning principle from all parts of the House and it is
important that we see that to safe haven. Clearly, it is
not just about the Bill. I very much agree with him on the
plain English guide—I know that he made that point before
very forcibly. We will certainly do what we can with the
website and the flow chart. I would welcome participation
and views from noble Lords as to how we can improve them. I
will pass on the thanks that he gave to the RICS for the
practitioners’ guide. I am sure we all hope that that will
be in plain English, as it is extremely important.
I turn to a point raised by the noble Lords, and , and my noble friend
Lady Cumberlege in relation to the timing of the
regulations. Clearly, as the consultation ends on 2 May, I
cannot anticipate how many responses we will have in
relation to this matter. I hope that it will be quite a
lot. We intend to move quickly and not to delay things, but
we need to make sure that the system works well. I hope
your Lordships will understand that we would want some time
to take account of those views. In relation to the very
fair point made by the noble Lord, , about continuing the
process of consultation and getting it right by discussing
it with others, I would anticipate discussing the shape of
what we are going to do with my noble friend and with the
noble Lords, , and Lord Kennedy,
and others, but that would not be to slow the process down.
We have to get the balance right there, but I would be very
happy to do that.
I thank the noble Lord, , for his generous
invitation to St James’. An invitation from me would be to
the King Power Stadium, if we are indeed in the same league
next year. As he may know, I am in Newcastle on Friday of
this week and when I said that I am visiting the two
cathedrals, many people told me that there are actually
three cathedrals—the third being St James’. I do not think
I have time for it on this occasion, but I look forward
very much to locking horns over football for once, rather
than over politics. I am sure that would be a game we would
both enjoy.
In relation to the points made by the noble Lord, , about who is included
under new sub-paragraph (3)(d) in Amendment 1, we want to
make sure that there is an open, fair and transparent
procedure. In relation to meetings, therefore, I do not
think we would want to stipulate that a group should be of
a particular size. It would not be just individuals, but if
somebody wanted to come along from the neighbourhood group
with a fair number of people, we would be looking to that.
We are not prescribing anything; it is important that it is
an open and transparent process. In relation to other
bodies that may be prescribed, I think that other amenity
groups might have an interest in the area—I will write to
the noble Lord if I am wrong on this—and it could
conceivably be the National Trust, if it had property
there. I anticipate it would be that sort of thing.
I have dealt with the noble Lord’s point in relation to the
consultation on the regulations, which will, as I say, have
the negative procedure. I thank again those noble Lords who
have participated in the debate on these amendments.
Amendment 1 agreed.
5.15 pm
Amendment 2
Moved by
2: After Clause 14, insert the following new Clause—
“Development of new towns by local authorities
(1) The New Towns Act 1981 is amended as follows.(2) After
section 1 insert—“1A Local authority to oversee development of
new town(1) This section applies where the Secretary of State is
considering designating an area of land in England as the site of
a proposed new town in an order under section 1.(2) The Secretary
of State may, in an order under section 1, appoint one or more
local authorities to oversee the development of the area as a new
town.(3) But a local authority may only be appointed if the area
of land mentioned in subsection (1) is wholly or partly within
the area of the local authority. (4) The Secretary of State may
by regulations make provision about how a local authority is to
oversee the development of an area as a new town.(5) Regulations
under subsection (4) may, for example—(a) provide that a local
authority is to exercise specified functions under this Act which
would otherwise be exercisable by the Secretary of State, the
appropriate Minister or the Treasury;(b) provide that a local
authority is to exercise such functions subject to specified
conditions or limitations;(c) provide that specified functions
under this Act may be exercised only with the consent of a local
authority;(d) make provision about the membership of a
corporation established under section 3, including the proportion
of the members of the corporation who may be members of or
employed by a local authority;(e) modify provisions of this
Act;(f) make different provision for different purposes;(g) make
incidental, supplementary or consequential provision.(6) In
subsection (5)(a) the reference to “functions” does not include a
power to make regulations or other instruments of a legislative
character.(7) Where two or more local authorities are appointed
in an order containing provision by virtue of subsection (2), the
Secretary of State may in that order provide—(a) that a specified
function is to be exercised by a specified local authority, or(b)
that a specified function is to be exercised by two or more
specified local authorities jointly.(8) In this section—“local
authority” means—(a) a district council,(b) a county council,
or(c) a London borough council;“specified” means specified in—(a)
an order containing provision by virtue of subsection (2), or(b)
regulations under subsection (4).”(3) In section 77 (regulations
and orders)—(a) in subsection (2), after “which” insert “,
subject to subsection (2A),”, and(b) after subsection (2)
insert—“(2A) A statutory instrument containing regulations under
section 1A(4) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument
has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House
of Parliament.””
-
(LD)
My Lords, this amendment is tabled in my name and that of
the noble Lords, and , who have given great
support on this issue during the passage of the Bill, as
have noble Lords on all sides of the House. On Report,
there was a very welcome commitment from the Minister to
return to this issue.
I should draw attention to my interests. I advise many
projects, including new settlement projects. I am a
visiting professor of planning at Plymouth University, and
over the years I have worked with government bringing
forward policy changes.
This amendment is aimed at empowering local government
communities to bring forward settlements of the highest
quality, ensuring that the value that comes from
development taking place is captured to create great places
and deliver wonderful facilities for those places and is
not captured in excessive profits for landowners or
developers, and ensuring that the Government’s objectives
in bringing forward the garden villages, garden towns and
garden cities programme are met in terms of the delivery of
what comes forward, with opportunities for small builders,
self-builders and contract builders to grow and deliver in
new ways better quality, more affordable homes and all the
facilities in these places to create sustainable and
vibrant 21st century communities.
Why have I tabled this amendment? At the start of the
passage of the Bill, I made the point that in the
Neighbourhood Planning Bill the Government accepted
proposals that I and other noble Lords brought to the House
to simplify the process of using the New Towns Act. The New
Towns Act is essentially from a period when central
government was much more involved in local delivery and
when that was accepted. We are now in an era of localism,
yet the New Towns Act gives all the power to the Secretary
of State who has no capacity to hand over the role of the
corporations that will be set up to deliver these new
settlements to the local councils that would bring them
forward. In the modern world, it is not right that in
seeking to deliver a new settlement through a new town
corporation to ensure that it is delivered at quality and
pace to meet local needs a local council would surrender
all the powers to the Secretary of State.
I do not think that the Secretary of State would want to
have power over every penny of expenditure, the power of
planning, because these bodies would get planning powers,
and the power of controlling the assets and, potentially,
of future disposals of those assets. It is far more likely
that local authorities and communities will be comfortable
with this process if they have not simply identified the
site and taken the decision that it should be brought
forward. When it comes here and the necessary process is
gone through in Parliament to approve it, they should be
confident that those powers will be exercised locally and
that in the long run the assets will be controlled locally
for the benefit of the people who live there and the wider
community.
When we first debated this, the Minister understandably
said that the Government needed to think about this and
work it through, but the White Paper made it clear that the
Government agree with this process. I have been delighted
that the Government have taken forward this policy, which I
was very much involved in developing. On the back of the
White Paper, we came back. I have to thank the Minister for
his positive response on Report and for allowing me to talk
to officials in working through something that might now
work positively for the Government and that could be
incorporated into this Bill.
I shall briefly speak to some of the detail. The principle
of the amendment is to give the Secretary of State the
power to appoint one or more local authorities in the
designated area of the new town to oversee the delivery of
the new town and the new development corporation. This is a
localising measure. It hands really strong power to
communities to ensure that new towns are delivered at
quality.
The functions that would be transferred to local
authorities for this purpose would be set out in secondary
regulations subject to the affirmative procedure, so fully
respecting parliamentary process. Since new towns may
straddle the boundary of more than one authority, more than
one authority could be appointed. This will make it much
simpler in those circumstances to bring forward and deliver
proposals. The Secretary of State would be able to set out
how those powers would be transferred to those local
authorities, for joint exercise or divided between them.
Changes to the New Towns Act may be needed to allow this to
work on subjects such as asset control. The purpose of the
power to modify the Act would be to make the principle of
local accountability work.
Therefore, this fits with the agenda that Members across
the House have outlined, to bring many more homes forward
to meet local needs and to capture the value of land in
order to create supplements. In that way, we would not look
to the taxpayer to fund the school, build the surgery,
provide for shops or build a real community. The value of
the land would be put into the process of making this work.
At the moment, where projects are approved, the risk is
that they are sold on through the chain of speculators,
developers and housebuilders. Then, by the time that they
are delivered, on grounds of viability because of the price
that has been paid for the land or because of the model of
the housebuilder, none of the promises made at the start to
the local community is delivered. The use of the
development corporation as proposed would guarantee that
what had been promised to people at the start would be
delivered to people at the end.
This approach would open the opportunity to use compulsory
purchase powers under the New Towns Act. These could be
used where necessary, but normally purchase would be done
by treaty in consultation with landowners. The point would
be to reach a price that allows the delivery of the quality
of place that has been promised. That promised quality
would then be locked in through the development corporation
process, rather than being at risk of never being
delivered. I am afraid that I can take noble Lords to many
places where much was promised and far too little of those
promises was delivered. There are places where it has been
done well, but only where there has been a landowner
genuinely committed to it.
That partnership would, therefore, be available. Generally,
I imagine that it would be done through joint venture and
partnership and agreement but none the less locking in that
quality. Where that did not happen, powers would be there
to achieve the quality of place that is needed.
Above all, this is about three things. One is keeping it
honest and delivering what is promised. That is essential
if there is to be any credibility around the delivery, not
just of housing but of communities and neighbourhoods, that
this approach of garden villages and towns promises.
Secondly, it is critical if we are to move from a supply of
new homes inadequate to meet people’s needs that results in
ever-accelerating prices beyond what is affordable. If we
are to create the 250,000 to 300,000 homes each year that
we need, rather than 150,000, those extra homes need to be
delivered to a higher quality in places that they do not
ruin. Rather than encircling existing historic towns and
villages with endless bland housing estates, we need to
deliver something better in places where people can accept
them and where the public will support the programme. If we
try to raise the numbers but deliver inadequate quality, as
too often happens currently, there will simply be a public
revolt and we will not get the houses delivered.
Finally, it is also critical that we understand that the
big housebuilder model does not allow big housebuilders
greatly to increase the numbers being delivered. They will
not do so even if they wish to because of the way in which
they are financed and the way in which publicly assisted
companies are priced. The only way to deliver the increased
numbers—and also the increased quality—is to build up new
entrants, whether housing associations, growing SMEs,
self-builders or overseas developers of the highest
quality. They all need places to build without the current
tortuous process of land options and land banking.
These are the mechanisms to deliver it. But it will happen
only if we have a very clear understanding that this means
delivering great places to go with the plots to build them
on, not just handing this over to the people who build
houses and expecting them somehow to create great places.
We know they deliver housing estates, but they do not
deliver the quality of places demanded by people, which is
what will give public acceptability to the programme.
This amendment will be the critical factor in creating
local empowerment to deliver what will be a genuine
game-changer. I am very grateful for the support there has
been on all sides of the House for this and to the
Government for the positive way in which they have
responded to the case. I beg to move.
-
(CB)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to the amendment, to which I
have attached my name. I commend the noble Lord, , for
following through on our earlier amendment and indeed for
all his good work in promoting new garden villages and
garden towns. This amendment is not as definitive as the
one we discussed on Report, but it should achieve the same
outcome, namely of placing local authorities centre stage
in the creation and oversight of the new corporations that
will be responsible for these major new settlements. This
will greatly improve the prospects of these much-needed new
communities getting off the ground.
I was delighted to hear today that the Local Government
Association—I declare my interest as an LGA
vice-president—is fully supportive of the amendment. If
accepted, the amendment will mean it will be much more
likely that a number of successful, well-designed,
mixed-income new settlements will be developed over the
years ahead. That would be of enormous benefit to many
thousands of households, which will have great new places
to bring up their families and live their lives, as well as
to the nation as a whole in reducing acute housing
shortages. I have every confidence that the Minister will
find the amendment entirely acceptable, and if so, I
congratulate the Government. Following the housing White
Paper, and a number of the helpful measures in this Bill, I
greatly welcome this further step in the Government’s
creation of a much-improved set of national housing
policies. I strongly support the amendment.
-
My Lords, I join the noble Lord in complimenting the noble
Lord, Lord Taylor, for his very thoughtful and constructive
contributions to the Bill and on this amendment. However, I
have one question to put to him about it. Proposed new
subsection (8) defines a local authority as,
“a district council … a county council, or … a London
borough council”.
Where do the new mayoral combined authorities sit within
this framework? Perhaps the noble Lord could assist me with
that, or perhaps the Minister could indicate what role is
envisaged for a combined authority, which will presumably
by its very nature include land for development which
crosses what would previously have been boundaries but are
now within the new framework. I suspect the noble Lord,
Lord Taylor, would wish that combined authority to exercise
a role, but perhaps the Minister could indicate what the
Government’s attitude would be and whether any further step
needs to be taken to ensure that that outcome is fulfilled.
-
(Con)
My Lords, I speak in favour of the amendment as well, and
declare my interest in the register as chairman of the
Local Government Association. The noble Lord, , is right that the
association welcomes this. It is pleased to do so, even in
a version that is slightly watered down from the original.
The Secretary of State should be congratulated on being
prepared to cede some power: it is not very often that a
Secretary of State is happy to let somebody else get on
with something unless it is going to be a bad news story. I
honestly believe this will be a good news story, so I am
pleased that he is prepared to do it.
Like the noble Lord, , though, I also have an
issue with proposed new subsection (8): its definition of
councils does not appear to allow unitary councils where
they are the council of choice for people to be the body
that makes a decision. It is fine for the districts or the
counties to do that, but unitary councils outside London
appear to be excluded. I am sure Newcastle or Sheffield
would also want some space in this conversation. I am not
sure at the moment how that could be changed, but perhaps
it could be changed to “local planning authorities and
county councils”. That would capture all existing councils.
I urge against including combined authorities at this stage
until we are sure where the constituent members of those
authorities see this power resting.
5.30 pm
-
(CB)
My Lords, I have just come out of a meeting this afternoon.
I chair the regeneration and communities committee on the
Olympic Park. I have been involved with the Olympic Park
from the very beginning; I think this is year 18. We have
been on a very long journey. Along with a colleague I wrote
the document for that eventually led to
the setting up of the Olympic Park Legacy Company, which of
course now is a corporation. So one has watched and been
involved in all the detail of what is now happening in
Stratford in east London, which is a very exciting cluster
development. This afternoon we have seen a new school at
Here East, businesses and housing all coming together.
There are one or two cautionary lessons. First, local
authorities can be very good if you have the right
leadership in place to drive them, but if you do not then
very different things can go on. It is all about the
people, not structures. I know from experience that local
authorities, if they are not so good, can be warring
factors and can play lots of politics around these things
that do not deliver the best quality but sometimes
undermine that.
Secondly, we have learned that it is important to have the
right serious business partners on the board of the
corporation who, together with public sector leaders and
leaders in the social enterprise sector, buy into a
narrative over a long period of time; and that getting the
top, middle and bottom of these institutions to buy and act
out that narrative is important as well.
Ultimately, it is all about people and relationships. Our
experience suggests that giving local control is very
important, but I suggest that it is not just about local
authorities—it is about the relationships between people in
business, the public sector and, particularly, the
community sector. Sometimes local authorities can talk as
though they represent and understand the local community,
but I have found over the years that that might not
actually be true. It is about the right relationships, the
right people and the right experience around the table.
-
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have participated in the
debate on Amendment 2. I thank particularly the noble Lord,
, for
moving it, supported by the noble Lord, . I thank them both and
indeed other noble Lords for their time and commitment on
this issue and for the opportunity to discuss this matter.
We have discussed it both in Committee and on Report, and I
have been heartened to hear the support for the measure
from across the Chamber.
This amendment seeks to support the creation of locally led
garden towns and villages by enabling the responsibility
for any development corporation created under the New Towns
Act 1981 to be transferred to a local authority or
authorities, covering all or part of the area designated
for the new town or village. On the point made by my noble
friend Lord Porter, I think the definition is broad enough
to include unitary authorities; that is certainly the
intention. On a different point about combined authorities
that was made by the noble Lord, , of course we can create
mayoral development corporations in relation to the new
combined authorities—we did so with Teesside a couple of
weeks ago—so that could well be part of the deal with the
new authority. However, along with other noble Lords, I
would want to think carefully in conjunction with the
combined authorities as to whether they wanted to take that
power on. I think I am right in saying, although I may be
wrong, that the designated garden towns and villages do not
come within the purview of what at the moment is projected
as a combined authority, but it is a point well made.
Therefore, I would like to go away to ponder this and give
a fuller response to the noble Lord, if I may, copying it
to noble Lords who participated in the debate and putting a
copy in the Library.
The aim of the amendment is entirely consistent with those
of the Bill. The Government certainly support it and I
thank in particular the noble Lord, , for his pre-emptive
congratulations on the Government’s support. The amendment
is very consistent with the approach of the Government, the
department and the recently published White Paper in
relation to the importance of localism.
I take the point of the noble Lord, , about the importance of
ensuring that all local authorities have the right attitude
to these things. We hope that is accomplished through
elections but the broad principle of it being done locally
must be right. That has been echoed throughout the
contributions on this legislation as it has gone through
the House: local is better. We know that a number of local
authorities—for example, those in north Essex—are
interested in taking advantage of the new opportunity that
the amendment would provide to support a new generation of
locally led garden towns and villages, the 21st-century
heirs to Letchworth and Welwyn.
I also welcome the support of the Local Government
Association and the kind words of my noble friend Lord
Porter for the principle behind the amendment. I am very
pleased that it commands wide support throughout the House.
This is a simple principle; making it work in practice will
require detailed modifications to the New Towns Act, which
my department will develop. We will want to keep in close
contact with the noble Lords, Lord Taylor and , both of whom I thank
very much for the impetus and enthusiasm they have given
this and the expertise they bring to the table. I pause at
this stage to pay tribute to their work as effective
champions of this issue throughout discussions on the Bill.
In conclusion, I am very pleased to support the noble
Lord’s amendment, which will help to fulfil an important
White Paper commitment.
-
My Lords, I shall respond very briefly. I thank the noble
Lord, , for all his support
and encouragement, not only on this Bill but previously. I
should also thank my noble friend Lady Parminter, who was
in the Chamber but has had to go, for moving an amendment
for me on Report that enabled this matter to be brought
forward.
We have had a promise from the Minister to come back on the
point made by the noble Lord, . I should make it clear
that the intention is absolutely that more than one local
authority can be involved. We need to explore the mechanism
for that and hear what the Minister has to say, but the
ability for more than one authority to come together is
here. I therefore imagine that in practice nothing would
stand in the way of the point that was raised.
On the point of the noble Lord, Lord Porter, about unitary
authorities, the intention is that they should be covered.
Indeed, having worked very hard to support the creation of
a unitary authority in Cornwall, I would be horrified if I
had managed in any way to get the drafting wrong on that
point, but I believe it is covered.
I absolutely take the point of the noble Lord, , and thank him for his
support. In my comments, I talked about the fact that
although the mechanism is here for local authorities to
take a leadership role, the expectation is absolutely for a
partnership approach. I thought quite hard about how one
might look at the structures of a corporation. It is very
important that this is not a 1950s or 1960s view, whereby a
local authority chief executive is appointed and gets on
with the job. The world has moved on since then. My view
has always been that you need, as we see in Europe and in
the States, a master developer and a master planner; you
need expertise and business experience.
I chair a joint strategic board for the Carclaze garden
village, which has been many years in gestation. The key
thing has been to bring together the local authority, the
private sector-led development body and the landowner in a
partnership. That partnership has been incredibly
successful. It took the development through the recession
after 2008. The developer is Egyptian-owned, so the
partnership took it through the storms of the Arab spring
in terms of its financing. It is now in front of planning,
and I think will be delivered. That has been possible only
because we have built a really strong partnership between
all parties, including the private sector, so there is a
very deep experience of people creating fantastic places
for business reasons, as well as the very important
experience of the council representing people and
understanding the processes of local government. There has
been a great partnership with the HCA as well.
I could not agree more with the noble Lord’s comments. That
is why, although this provision uses the powers of the New
Towns Act, it is very much in a 21st century setting—and
that is not just about localism; it is about partnership
between all the stakeholders. I also make the point that it
is about holding people to promises, because too often
people see wonderful designs at the stage when something is
proposed, but the moment when it is allocated or an outline
is commissioned, it is traded and traded and, somehow, it
gets watered down and not delivered. That experience is
important for business, too.
-
I welcome that, and I absolutely agree with the noble Lord.
The Civil Service finds it very hard to understand—and I
think that the noble Lord is saying the same thing—that
what really matters is having people around the table from
different sectors who care about the place and are going to
stay on this journey a very long time. It takes a long time
to deliver these things and it is very difficult, but it is
all about having the right people—people who care.
-
In every case when I have advised on new settlements coming
forward, I have advised local authorities, councillors and
communities but also those promoting the project to
establish the basis of the joint venture and partnership
for delivery of the original objectives and to hold people
to it. It is only by getting everyone around the table
jointly to discuss that—again, that is the case at
Carclaze—at every key stage, whether in looking at the
master plan and working out how to deliver affordable
housing and quality, wherever the ultimate power may lie to
take the decision, that we have all been jointly involved
in coming to the right conclusion. That is what these
bodies achieve; they are, ultimately, about keeping it
honest, but they are also about getting it delivered. The
noble Lord clearly has that experience in the Olympic
context, and we need that experience in each of these
initiatives.
The last thing that we want is to create bland housing
estates in the countryside, not great communities. If we do
the former, the project will die very quickly, and public
enthusiasm will disappear; if we get it right, people will
clamour for what are actually the intentions of the 1947
planning Act, when people talked about stopping suburban
sprawl, rejuvenating cities and towns and building new
communities to meet the needs of those who could not be
housed. This is about returning to those objectives and
putting back under control the suburban sprawl that we see
once again too often around our historic towns and cities.
It is a new option and a better one.
I thank the Minister very much for his supportive comments.
We have worked very closely on getting this right.
Amendment 2 agreed.
Amendment 3
Moved by
3: After Clause 14, insert the following new Clause—
“Local authorities meeting housing targets to be permitted to
override prior approval
(1) Where a local planning authority can show that—(a) the
exercise of prior approvals for the conversion of offices to
residential is having a detrimental effect on the local economy,
including the expulsion of, or non-renewal of leases to,
businesses to make way for residential development, and(b) the
relevant local authority is meeting its housing targets and can
show reasonable evidence that it will continue to do so,the local
authority concerned may, notwithstanding any regulation or
provision to the contrary, require any future application in any
part of, or the whole of, the local authority area to seek full
planning permission and may bring any part of the adopted local
plan, or relevant neighbourhood plan, into consideration in
determining that application.(2) A local authority may recover
all permitted planning fees and costs in relation to any
application for a development determination by prior approval, as
if the application concerned were subject to all procedures of a
normal planning application.”
-
(Con)
My Lords, this is Third Reading and there is other business
before the House, so I shall endeavour to be brief on this
matter. However, it is important. I shall seek not to
repeat points that I made on Report and on previous Bills.
The subject that I have been trying to deal with is the
problem in parts of London in particular, but also in other
high-value areas, where there is arbitraging under the
current very free prior approval system and where you can
switch without planning permission from office to
residential, taking a very large profit—threefold or
fourfold—and in so doing throwing out of premises
businesses that in some cases have been established there
for a very long time. I have argued for many years that
this was an abuse. In our case, in my authority of
Richmond—I declare an interest as leader—we have lost 30%
of our office space. As I explained to the House before, in
half of those cases the offices were partly or wholly
occupied by businesses.
5.45 pm
I have been very grateful, in pursuing a way out of and a
resolution to this injustice, for the support from the noble
Lords, and , on the Benches opposite.
This started about four years ago, when they were my noble
friends, although I hope that they are still my friends. I also
thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy—he is understandably not able
to be in his place—who is also a London councillor and gave a
great deal of support.
The amendment before the House is not intended to be perfect or
to be included in the legislation. I reiterate in the absolute
strongest terms my sense of gratitude towards my noble friend on
the Front Bench and to his colleague, my noble friend Lord Young,
for the way in which they and their officials have conducted
themselves on this legislation. Following our debate on Report,
my noble friend gave hope that if I took away the amendment, he
would give consideration with colleagues to addressing the two
key issues that are highlighted in this amendment—or at least two
of the key issues. The first is the inability of the local
council to address this problem. We discussed the difficulties
with Article 4 and I am hopeful that we may get some suggestion
that those difficulties could at least in part be addressed.
Second is the fact that local authorities lose an enormous amount
of money when a developer goes round through the prior approval
route, as they do not have to pay planning fees. I gave the
figures in a debate at a previous stage—hundreds of thousands
were lost to my authority alone, where it would have been a clear
open and shut case for the developer to get planning approval
because the offices were clearly not of strategic purpose.
Subsection (2) of the proposed new clause refers to that issue.
I bring this back before your Lordships, having been encouraged
to believe that when my noble friend responds he might give me
some hope, short of seeking to take a legislative route through
your Lordships’ House today, that there may be some meaningful
and positive response from the Government to help local
authorities address this issue and for redress—sadly, the stable
door has been open for a long time—to lift the fear that some
small businesses still have of this threat coming their way. I
beg to move.
-
(LD)
My Lords, I find myself once again in tandem with the noble
Lord, . He said correctly
that we have been pedalling together on this issue for, I
think, about four years now—mostly against a very strong
headwind, it has to be said, both under the coalition
Government and the present Government. I join him in
welcoming, shall we say, a slightly less strong wind, a
gentler breeze, on this occasion.
I still have the view that the question of the conversion
of offices to residential—which is in many cases entirely
desirable, where there are redundant offices, and so
on—should be a matter for the local planning authority to
determine in the light of local circumstances and to get
such planning benefit as may be appropriate and possible. I
understand that the breeze is still too strong for us to go
quite that far, but when the Minister replied to our debate
on this on Report—indeed, we have debated it at every stage
of this Bill—he made some sympathetic and encouraging
noises to encourage us to withdraw our amendment, which we
of course intended to do anyway.
I would like the Minister to clarify two particular points
for me, both of which I mentioned on Report—I will not go
over all the ground again. I made the point that Article 4
is usually cited as the answer to all questions on this
matter, and I related the experience of my own borough.
Incidentally, I should once again declare that I am a
vice-president of the Local Government Association. The
following is no longer a declarable interest, but I was for
many years a town centre councillor, and indeed leader of
the council, in a south London borough not too far from the
borough of the noble Lord, , and I have seen the
effect of this measure on the ground there. When my then
authority applied to introduce Article 4, the Government of
the day made it extremely clear that they would certainly
not counsel an Article 4 direction for the entire borough.
They said that to a number of other London boroughs, and no
doubt other authorities too. Indeed, they would not even
allow it to cover a wider area within the borough and
insisted on it being very tightly drawn around the town
centre. That provision has had inevitable effects since it
came into operation in our town centre area. It has now
spread to the district centres, where Article 4 does not
apply, and where we have seen an alarming spread of offices
being converted to residential use. These are not empty,
redundant offices. The figures I have cited several times
in this debate applied to our town centre. While we waited
for Article 4 to take effect, 28% of the office space in
the town centre was lost. That was not redundant space;
two-thirds of the offices lost were in active use at the
time and the businesses in them had to move.
I hope the Minister will tell us what the Government’s
attitude now is towards local authorities that wish to
introduce Article 4 over a wider area, or indeed over the
whole local authority area, particularly where local
authorities like mine have achieved, and indeed exceeded,
the housing targets for many years. We are more than
meeting government and London government requirements on
housing targets. Will we now be allowed more leniency in
the areas in which Article 4 may apply?
Secondly, as I have already mentioned, in the period we had
to wait to implement Article 4, we lost 28% of the town
centre office space. There was a reason for that. If
Article 4 is introduced immediately, the local authority is
liable to pay compensation, which could run to very
considerable sums. Therefore my authority, and most, if not
all, authorities, give 12 months’ notice of the intention
to apply Article 4. It is inevitable that if you give 12
months’ notice of the intention to apply restrictions,
landlords and developers with a mind to convert offices to
residential use are bound to go ahead in the period before
Article 4 takes effect, especially if that is as long as 12
months, as it has to be. I hope that when he replies the
Minister will say something about this long period. If
local authorities are still to be required to give 12
months’ notice, can he say anything about their liability
for compensation to those who feel they may have a case for
that compensation?
I conclude, as did the noble Lord—my noble friend—, by thanking the
Minister in this place and the Minister in another place
for taking a very much more sensible and realistic attitude
to this issue and for listening to actual experience on the
ground. I hope they will be willing to adopt measures to
improve this situation. I thank the noble Lord, , for his very
considerable persistence and perseverance on this issue
throughout the previous four years.
-
My Lords, I support the amendment and I hope the Government
will react sympathetically to the objectives that noble
Lords outlined. We certainly are at one with them. I speak
from my experience in Newcastle. It is important that the
Government should see the logic of the case that is made in
the amendment, and I hope they will treat it accordingly.
-
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have participated in the
debate on Amendment 3 in relation to office-to-residential
conversion. I particularly thank my noble friend and the noble Lord,
, for bringing before
us again the issue of permitted development rights for
change of use. This enables me to set out in more detail
the proposal that I put before noble Lords on Report in a
very sketchy form, and to which I promised to return. At
the time, I spoke about the potential benefit of allowing
greater flexibility over whether the permitted development
right for the change of use from office to residential
should apply to those areas that are delivering the homes
that their communities need. I am sure noble Lords will
agree that it is in everybody’s interest to ensure that we
do not put future housing delivery at risk. In fairness,
that point was made by the noble Lord, .
The housing White Paper sets out compelling evidence of why
it is crucial that we fix our broken housing market—one of
the greatest barriers to progress in Britain today. Noble
Lords will know that in the year to March 2016, over 12,800
homes came from the change of use from offices to
residential alone. However, as I said on Report, I
recognise that while the national picture is positive in
terms of the contribution of permitted development rights
to housing delivery, in some places there have been
concerns about the local impact.
We can all agree that some authorities are high performers
in delivering new housing. I am therefore pleased to
confirm our future approach to Article 4 directions to
remove the permitted development right for the change of
use from office to residential where the local planning
authority is delivering 100% or more of its housing
requirement. As we have set out in our recent housing White
Paper, we will introduce a new housing delivery test which
will measure an area’s local housing delivery against its
housing requirement. It is proposed that the housing
delivery test will be measured as an average over a
three-year rolling period and data will be published
alongside the net additions statistics in November each
year. We propose that housing delivery will be assessed
against an up-to-date local plan, London Plan or statutory
spatial development strategy—or in their absence, published
household projections—and that the first housing delivery
data will be published in November this year. This will
indicate to local authorities whether this additional
Article 4 flexibility would apply to directions they
brought forward after this date.
We are committing today that, following the publication of
the housing delivery data, where an authority is meeting
100% of its housing delivery requirement and can continue
to do so after removal of the right, and where it is able
to demonstrate that it is necessary to remove the right to
protect the amenity and well-being of a particular
area—that might address the point that the noble Lord,
, raised; there is
still that continuing obligation although it may
conceivably be a larger area than at present, but there is
not the necessity to satisfy that test—the Secretary of
State will not seek to limit a direction applying to that
area.
When considering whether to bring forward an Article 4
direction regarding office-to-residential conversion, the
local planning authority must demonstrate that it can
continue to meet its housing requirement when the right is
removed. This provides an important safeguard to ensure
that local areas will continue to deliver the homes that
communities need. For instance, we know that in the year to
March 2016, the homes delivered under the right made a
significant contribution to housing delivery in some areas.
Importantly, the Article 4 direction must continue to meet
the test set out in the National Planning Policy Framework.
As I say, the local planning authority must still provide
robust evidence to demonstrate that removing the permitted
development right is necessary to protect the amenity and
well-being of the area where the right is to be removed.
This could include impact from the loss of office space. I
hope that is helpful to the noble Lord and to other noble
Lords who have participated in the debate on the Bill.
Where these tests are met, we would look more generously at
the area across which the direction would apply and not
seek to limit the direction. Of course, housing delivery
changes over time. Therefore, local planning authorities
should review their housing delivery annually and, if it
falls below 100% in subsequent years, we would expect them
to review the direction and cancel or modify it as
necessary. The local authority may then be able to bring
forward a further direction at a later date on the back of
improved delivery where it had dipped below the housing
delivery test.
This approach reflects the intent of the noble Lords’
amendment. It allows areas that are meeting their housing
requirements local flexibility in having a greater say over
where the right will apply as long as they can demonstrate
that removal of the right is necessary and that they will
continue to meet their housing need. It enables local
planning authorities to determine such cases in accordance
with their local plan, any neighbourhood plan and other
material considerations. At the same time, it provides
safeguards should housing delivery decline. Moreover, it
does so within the existing Article 4 processes, with which
local planning authorities are familiar.
6.00 pm
The noble Lords also raised concerns on Report about planning
application fees but, before I move on to that, I want to respond
to a point raised by the noble Lord, , about the compensation
payable and the 12-month notice period. National permitted
development rights are set at a level which the Government
believe is generally appropriate across the country, and only in
exceptional cases should local authorities find it necessary to
restrict these rights. In many cases, local authorities can avoid
a compensation liability, as the noble Lord said, by giving 12
months’ notice of their intention to introduce an Article 4
direction. So they could proceed with an Article 4 direction
without notice but, in those circumstances, they would be liable
to compensation, and we are not proposing to alter that
provision.
I turn to the loss of planning application fees where an Article
4 direction is in place and the impact that this has on local
authority resources—a matter on which my noble friend and the noble Lord,
, have also focused. I am
pleased to be able to respond to the concerns on this front as
well, and I can today commit to a further measure to support
local authorities.
We will bring forward regulations to allow local planning
authorities to charge the statutory planning application fee
where permitted development rights are withdrawn by an Article 4
direction. We believe that this is an important step in
recognising the resource commitment for authorities in
determining planning applications in areas where the permitted
development rights have been removed for sound policy reasons.
This will further support timely local decision-making in
bringing forward development quickly in accordance with local
needs.
Noble Lords will be aware that we have committed to a 20% uplift
in application fees from July where the funding is to be used to
support the planning function of the local authority. I can
confirm that this uplift will also apply to the fee for prior
approval. We believe that this approach in respect of Article 4
directions provides local flexibility for areas that are meeting
housing need, while ensuring the continued delivery of homes
under the right. As I committed to do on Report, I have set out
this approach today and I have also set it out in a letter to my
noble friend. I am not sure whether that letter has reached him
but I will place a copy in the House Library. This will be
supported by detailed guidance, which we will provide nearer the
time.
In closing, I thank both my noble friend and the noble Lord,
. I have a graphic image of
the two of them on a tandem coming through south-west London and
initially facing a strong headwind but now heading for the sunny
uplands with a gentle breeze. It will be an image that is with me
for some time. However, I thank them for the reasoned,
constructive and patient way in which they have approached this
issue—particularly my noble friend , who I know has been
absolutely determined in relation to this issue over a
considerable time and has approached it with great courtesy and
great patience. However, in the light of the commitments that I
have made, I respectfully ask him to withdraw his amendment.
-
My Lords, I am extremely grateful for what my noble friend
has said. My great-grandfather was a baker. I am told that
my grandmother once said to him, “Some of these loaves
don’t look very good”, to which he replied, “Well, it’s the
food they want, m’duck, not the fancy”. The fact is that of
course one could quibble about the issue of compensation
and the crux between the 12 months’ notice and so on. There
are issues there and there will be continuing discussion
between local authorities and the Government. However, it
would be churlish not to concentrate on the substantial
steps that have been taken. I am very grateful for those,
particularly obviously in relation to the fees but also—we
will study the details—for the very clear indication that
some of the difficulties in using Article 4 will be
removed.
As well as thanking my noble friends on the Front Bench, I
thank the Housing Minister, Mr Barwell, who intervened in
this matter very effectively and courteously. I do not want
to destroy his career but at a meeting of some of the
London council leaders earlier this week at which all three
parties were represented, the change that the Minister had
made was commented on, and this is one small token of it.
I particularly thank my noble friends on the Front Bench
and colleagues on the Benches opposite, who have been very
supportive over a long period. Having said that, I beg
leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 3 withdrawn.
Clause 42: Regulations
Amendment 4
Moved by
4: Clause 42, page 38, line 26, leave out “27(1), (2) or (3)” and
insert “27(1) or (3)”
-
My Lords, in moving to this last amendment to be debated, I
should note that this is a minor and technical amendment to
correct a drafting inconsistency between Clauses 27(2) and
42(3).
In Clause 27, the Secretary of State has the power to make
regulations concerning the temporary possession of land
under subsections (1), (2) and (3). The Welsh Ministers,
however, have the power to make regulations only under
subsections (1) and (3) because none of the legislation
referenced in subsection (2) is devolved. Therefore, Clause
42(3) specifies that regulations made by the Welsh
Ministers under Clause 27 must follow the affirmative
resolution procedure. Amendment 4 thus removes the
redundant reference to Clause 27(2). I beg to move.
Amendment 4 agreed.
Schedule 1: New Schedule A2 to the Planning and Compulsory
Purchase Act 2004
Amendment 5
Moved by
5: Schedule 1, page 48, line 7, at end insert—
“(3) The regulations may in particular impose duties on an
examiner which are to be complied with by the examiner in
considering the draft plan under paragraphs 10 and 11 and which
require the examiner—(a) to provide prescribed information to
each person within sub- paragraph (4);(b) to publish a draft
report containing the recommendations which the examiner is
minded to make in the examiner’s report under paragraph 13;(c) to
invite each person within sub-paragraph (4) or representatives of
such a person to one or more meetings at a prescribed stage or
prescribed stages of the examination process;(d) to hold a
meeting following the issuing of such invitations if such a
person requests the examiner to do so.(4) Those persons are—(a)
the qualifying body,(b) the local planning authority, and(c) such
other persons as may be prescribed.(5) Where the regulations make
provision by virtue of sub-paragraph (3)(c) or (d), they may make
further provision about—(a) the procedure for a meeting;(b) the
matters to be discussed at a meeting.”
Amendment 5 agreed.
Bill passed and returned to the Commons with amendments.
|
