Housing and Planning Bill

Public Bill Committee, 8 December 2015.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

I welcome the Committee to what must be the penultimate day of our consideration of the detail of the Bill, given that it must be reported by 5 pm on Thursday evening.

Clause 104 - Approval condition where development order grants permission for building

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

I beg to move amendment 190, in clause 104, page 48, leave out lines 30 and 31 and insert—

“(1) The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 60 (permission granted by development order), after subsection (1) insert—”.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 191, in clause 104, page 48, line 42, at end insert—

“(3A) In section 70 (Determination of applications: general considerations), in subsection (1)(a) after ‘permission’ insert ‘in whole or in part and’”.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

I share your excitement that this is our penultimate day of scrutiny, Mr Gray, and I am pleased to see you in the Chair.

Many of us have a number of developments in our constituencies that are mostly popular and enjoy almost universal acceptance, but have controversial aspects. I can think of three sizable potential developments in my constituency where a large amount of what is being proposed is universally popular, but small elements are not so popular. I can think of one within the last year to which that applies.

The three amendments would make a relatively small technical change that is absolutely in line with what the Government are trying to do—to bring forth more housing and more development more quickly. The thrust of the amendments is to give local planning authorities exactly the same power as the Secretary of State has on appeal to grant planning permission for part of a development proposed. Such a power would be useful where planning applications can be split into several different elements, one of which is acceptable. I can think of a regeneration scheme currently going through for the southern end of my constituency, large elements of which are popular, but there are two controversial elements involving the scale and density of certain housing.

The amendments would put into statute a power for planning authorities. At present, planning authorities have the implicit ability to grant a lesser permission by using some of the conditions—a relevant case is Kent County Council v. Secretary of State for the Environment 1976. The planning practice guidance says that express powers to issue split decisions were given to the Secretary of State and the inspectors in section 79 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 when it was amended, allowing the Secretary of State and inspectors to reverse or vary any part of the decision of any local planning authority where the approved part is severable or substantially different from the scheme applied for. Those factors need to be taken into consideration.

The three amendments have considerable support. The chairman of the board of the Planning Officers Society recently spoke in favour of such an amendment. The amendment would grant the ability on appeal to approve a scheme, the larger part or some parts of which enjoy great support, while other parts do not.

Gareth Thomas (Labour/Co-operative, Harrow West)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

I will, but I am keen to move the Committee quickly.

Gareth Thomas (Labour/Co-operative, Harrow West)

It is always important to debate new provisions. In that spirit, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I think of the proposal to redevelop the College Road site in my constituency. The bottom area, in which a new square is proposed to attract high-end restaurants and so on, is very popular, but the height of the overall development, at 20-plus storeys, is not popular. Might that development benefit from his amendment, or would it not be covered?

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

From that limited explanation, I think it probably would be covered. As I said in my opening remarks, we all know developments where parts enjoy substantial support, yet some elements do not, particularly if the parts are severable from each other inside the application.

The amendments would allow a scheme to be approved in part. The purpose is to allow development to get under way more quickly. I accept that there will be circumstances where it is inappropriate or impossible to separate parts of schemes, but the amendments would allow developments and housing supply to happen more quickly, which is the thrust of the Bill. I hope that the Minister will either reassure me that his interpretation of the Government’s interpretation of the guidance is sufficient—many planning officers do not think it is—or let me know what his thoughts are and whether there may be room for discussion before the Bill proceeds further.

Gareth Thomas (Labour/Co-operative, Harrow West)

Very briefly, and following up the hon. Gentleman’s request for more information, I wish to talk about the planned development on the College Road site in Harrow West, which may or may not be covered by the amendment. The proposed development is in the centre of the shopping area in my constituency, so it is well known to most of my constituents. Many of them will be concerned about its height—potentially 20-plus storeys high, it might block out the iconic St Mary’s church in Harrow on the Hill. If there was some way in which residents, or the inspector on behalf of residents, could intervene to express a view on the height, the other parts of the proposed development at ground level, which will refresh and improve a part of Harrow town centre that has been blighted by lack of development for some time, would be popular. It is the height that worries residents. If the hon. Gentleman’s proposal for Wimbledon were to allow an inspector to vary something like the height of a development, I am sure his amendment would be of considerable interest to my constituents. I, too, look to the Minister with great interest to see whether his hon. Friend has managed to persuade him.

Brandon Lewis (Conservative, Great Yarmouth)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship in these last sittings of the Committee, Mr Gray.

Local planning authorities have the ability to issue planning permission for part of a development by way of conditions. The use of conditions in this way is restricted in case law so that what is granted permission by the local authority does not fundamentally differ from what the applicant applied for and the scheme consulted on. Best practice is only to grant permission in part with the agreement of the applicant, because to do otherwise can have a substantial impact on the wider viability of a development. The proposed amendment would remove those restrictions and allow local authorities to grant permission for something substantially different from the scheme that was applied for.

I have not had a chance to look at the amendment in much detail or to explore the potential impact, but accepting it would have a number of unintended consequences. They could include depriving the public of the opportunity to be consulted and to comment on an application that is different from the one that was actually applied for. That has serious implications. There may also be a risk of not complying with the requirements of regulations made in 2011 under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 if the development is significantly different from that applied for and consulted on.

None the less, my hon. Friend raises an interesting question about the way these permissions in part can be and are used to get developments going where they are consensual and agreed, although it may take longer to work through issues relating to other parts of the development on a larger scale. If he will bear with me, I would like to consider this further and come back to him, perhaps outside the Bill. The question has been raised and is due wider consideration and consultation with the sector. For those reasons, I hope my hon. Friend will be able to withdraw the amendment.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

I raised these points because I was very keen to hear my hon. Friend’s response, and I have listened carefully. He has been extraordinarily kind in giving me time to discuss some of these matters before the Committee. I heard his point about the unintended consequences and I hope that if he grants me further time, I will be able to persuade him that what I propose will not substantially alter schemes. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

I beg to move amendment 193, in clause 104, page 49, line 3, at end insert—

“(4B) In section 106 (Planning obligations), after subsection (2) insert—

(2A) A local planning authority may enter into a planning obligation as a person interested in land and as the local planning authority, including an obligation by agreement in both categories.”

Gareth Thomas (Labour/Co-operative, Harrow West)

I want to support the hon. Gentleman as a fellow London MP, but I think it would help him to gain the Committee’s support if he could give us some examples of where the problem he describes has been enough to stop development going ahead. I do not want to cause him trouble or difficulty, but I want to see how serious the problem is.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

The hon. Gentleman will have noticed that I prefaced my remarks about the clause by saying that is a relatively small but nonetheless important point. It is likely to become more important as we see more and more unused public sector land released. I can think of a circumstance of a relatively small pocket of public land where a local authority was the owner, but was also acting as the authority in terms of granting planning permission to produce a scheme of, I think, 12 properties in part of my constituency. I know there are a number of planning experts on the Committee with much greater knowledge than I have who would be able to confirm the point that, although such cases may not be numerous, resolving the issue is complex and there may be problems in bringing land forward.

I am not suggesting that it is a huge problem, but a relatively small amendment to section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 will authorise a planning authority to act as a party with an interest in the land as well as the planning authority granting an obligation. That obligation may be made unilaterally or by agreement, so it is important that it is legally acceptable when made by agreement. I look forward to the Minister’s response. The amendment, rather than like my previous ones, would help the Government with its ambition to bring forward housing developments more quickly.

Brandon Lewis (Conservative, Great Yarmouth)

It is vital that local authorities are able to mitigate the impact of unacceptable development and to make it acceptable for their communities in planning terms. Planning obligations play a key role, but the introduction of the community infrastructure levy has already reduced the need for such obligations in many circumstances. In recognition of the importance of planning obligations, we have made a commitment in our productivity plan in Government to introduce a dispute resolution mechanism for section 106 agreements, to speed up negotiations and enable housing starts to proceed much more quickly. We have also improved the guidance on the use of the obligations.

The amendment would allow local planning authorities to make planning obligations binding on their own land—for example, if they wished to grant planning permission before selling land for development. Planning permission can be granted subject to conditions, including Grampian or negative conditions, that require certain actions to be undertaken, and local authorities can include requirements in a contract of sale when they dispose of land. Although I will keep the situation under review, at this time I am not convinced that the amendment is required. I therefore invite my hon. Friend to withdraw it, while saying to him that perhaps outside of the Bill we can look at the matter further.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

My hon. Friend is, as ever, persuasive and logical in his argument. It would be appropriate therefore, on the basis of his reassurance that he intends to keep the matter under review, that I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Helen Hayes (Labour, Dulwich and West Norwood)

I beg to move amendment 284, in clause 104, page 49, line 3, at end insert—

“( ) When granting development orders, local planning authorities shall prescribe, in accordance with the objectively assessed needs identified in the Local Plan—

(a) Appropriate density;

(b) Suitable dwelling mix;

(c) Affordable housing required, and

(d) Community and social infrastructure requirements.”

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 285, in clause 104, page 49, line 3, at end insert—

“( ) The Secretary of State must make regulations which—

(a) require sufficient testing of the land to be carried out before permission in principle may be granted, and

(b) ensure provision of adequate funding to carry out the testing in subsection (a).

In this subsection ‘sufficient testing’ means carrying out necessary studies and assessments to ensure that a site is suitable for the development benefiting from permissions in principle.”

Helen Hayes (Labour, Dulwich and West Norwood)

These are probing amendments, designed to explore further the concept of permission in principle and the Government’s intentions in introducing it. There is considerable confusion regarding the concept and what it will mean for the English planning system and local communities. The Opposition wish to see a planning system that delivers the housing we need but does not override or overrule communities, or repeat the mistakes of the 1980s, when communities were built and developed and left without the facilities they needed to thrive and with no scope for future expansion.

I understand that there will be three types of permission in principle: sites included in brownfield registers, sites identified in local and neighbourhood plans, and straight applications made to local authorities. Already, permission in principle is starting to look confusing, since those three routes will have been subject to different levels of scoping and public consultation. It is not clear what needs to be known about a site or who needs to have commented on its suitability for permission in principle to be granted. A site that has been identified through the local planning process will have been consulted on. The consultation arrangements for brownfield registers are not yet clear, and an application made by a landowner or developer direct to a local authority might have had no consultation at all on the principle of development.

Permission in principle, as far as we can tell, will not set any parameters for development other than land use. A developer will know that housing can be built on a site, but not how much, or of what size or type, or what the design and quality standards must be. Importantly, developers will not necessarily know anything about the land on which they want to build, unless they have voluntarily undertaken investigations. I will set out why I believe that permission in principle as drafted offers nothing to local communities and little to developers, and why, as a consequence, it will fail to speed up the pace of development or to help to secure new homes.

The current development management process balances the interests of landowners and developers and local communities. Planning permission gives developers the certainty they need to unlock the finance for development, in return for having undertaken a rigorous process of analysis and design and consulted with local communities. Local communities have the opportunity to comment on and feed into the planning process and, where necessary, to make objections, in return for which parameters and safeguards should be written into the planning permission to help ensure the best possible outcomes for communities.

The certainty of a planning permission for both developers and communities rests in the content of that permission. For the developer, it rests in knowing how many homes can be built and at what size; understanding the costs that must be absorbed to accommodate infrastructure requirements and environmental, heritage and archaeological constraints; and knowing that a process has been undertaken in which all opportunities to object to the development have been explored and agreement has been reached through a democratic process. Certainty for communities rests in knowing the details of what is proposed, understanding that the design is sympathetic to the local area, that the materials are well considered, that local amenities have been protected and new amenities provided for, that issues concerning much-loved local heritage or wildlife habitats have been carefully considered and that, if the developer breaches the conditions set out in the plan, there is a process for addressing it.

Permission in principle appears to divorce entirely the principle of development from the detail of development. In my view, and in my experience of working with communities on planning issues for almost two decades, that is as illogical as it is unworkable. For communities, the acceptability of the principle often depends on at least some aspects of the detail. Often, community views on a development are not binary. They are not as simple as yes or no; they are “Yes, if the buildings are made from local stone, not red brick,” or “Yes, as long as we can still see that particular view,” or “Yes to houses but not to flats,” or “Yes, but only if new school places are provided to accommodate an increased population,” or “Yes, but we know that there are some rare plant species growing on the site and we want them to be properly taken care of.”

We know from the Government’s track record over the past five years that a combined approach of increasing planning consents and deregulating the planning system is not helping the increased delivery of new homes. Against a backdrop of increased planning consents and continued deregulation, house building starts fell by 14% between April and June of this year. Amendment 284 seeks to ensure that permission in principle has a minimum level of content. That will benefit both developers and communities. The amendment states simply that permission in principle should include an appropriate level of density for the site in question, an indication of suitable dwelling mix, the affordable housing requirements for the site, and an indication of the community and social infrastructure requirements. Those are all areas of key focus for objections through the planning process.

Peter Dowd (Labour, Bootle)

Many of us remember the brutalist structures built in the 1960s and planned under Tory Governments in the 1950s, and we recognise how dreadful many of those buildings are. Does my hon. Friend have any fear that proposals such as the Government’s will lead us back to those brutalist buildings?

Helen Hayes (Labour, Dulwich and West Norwood)

One of the great concerns about the Government’s proposals is that at present they contain no safeguards on quality of design, which our communities all care very much about. Which of us, as elected representatives, has not been asked to represent constituents objecting to a planning application because it is too tall, or too many homes are proposed, or because it is all small flats where the local need is for family-sized homes, or there is insufficient affordable housing.

Richard Bacon (Conservative, South Norfolk)

Some of the best dwellings in the country are the old estates in central London, such as the Cadogan estate and the Belgravia estate. One thing that they have in common is that they are dense and tall. The hon. Lady said “too tall”. Who is to say what is too tall?

Helen Hayes (Labour, Dulwich and West Norwood)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but I am not sure he was listening to my comments. I was saying that many of us, as elected representatives, have been asked to support communities in objecting to applications involving buildings considered by the community to be too tall. The point I am making is that if the content of a permission in principle contains height parameters, it will reduce the scope for objections on those grounds, because the matter has already been resolved. Communities can be secure in the knowledge that the content on height has been agreed. That is the point that I was making.

Similar grounds for objection include concern that an application will leave the area too built-up without adequate open space, or that there will be too much pressure on schools or GP practices as a consequence of development. A minimum level of detail contained within a permission in principle, which could be stated within the local plan or within the listing on the brownfield register, or determined by the local authority where an individual applicant comes forward, will be helpful in giving a genuine level of certainty to developers and a genuine level of comfort to communities.

Stewart Jackson (Conservative, Peterborough)

As an hon. Friend said to me just now, the proposal is not for in principle permission but detailed permission. It is the Stalinist tractor figures. The hon. Lady would be more compelling and persuasive in her arguments if there were any timescale to give effect to the changes. She will know that the uncertainty over permitted development rights, the conversion of offices into houses or flats, has stymied that development to a certain extent. To include the amendment in the Bill would do exactly the same thing and slow down the production of people’s homes.

Helen Hayes (Labour, Dulwich and West Norwood)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, notwithstanding the reference to Soviet dictators, which is never a helpful contribution to political debate in this Parliament—I stand by that. He made a good point about the need for timescale and for the development management process to be rigorously managed. I agree with him on that point.

The content of permission in principle for which I argue could be contained in the entry on the brownfield register about a particular site. It could be part of the process of designating that site on the brownfield register. It could be part of the local plan process, and it could be something that the local authority designates when an applicant comes forward in person.

Without that level of detail, permission in principle is a very confused concept. It purports to be a move towards a zonal system but it misses the key point about the zonal system in countries such as the Netherlands, which is that all of the work required to give certainty through the planning process is undertaken in those countries during the plan-making stage. A zonal system that has comparatively little detail at the plan-making stage, and apparently even less detail in the planning permission stage, gives certainty to no one, will fail to minimise risk and may even succeed in increasing—

Seema Kennedy (Conservative, South Ribble)

Would the hon. Lady give way?

Helen Hayes (Labour, Dulwich and West Norwood)

I would like to make a little more progress, if I may. It may even succeed in increasing alarm local communities, leading to further objections and challenges at the technical details stage.

The amendment is supported by the National Housing Federation written evidence that says:

“We believe that permission in principle should be broadly comparable with outline permission. So, for it to be granted, there will need to be clarity over the number of homes to be delivered, the tenure mix, the house type, the density and other permitted uses…and the permission in principle, should be time-bound to incentivise delivery.”

Amendment 285 seeks to ensure that sufficient investigatory work is undertaken prior to permission in principle being granted to determine that the site in question is suitable for the proposed development. It would require the Secretary of State to make regulations on the information about a site that must be known before permission in principle is granted. The content of that information should be defined by the regulations, but obvious examples include heritage and archeological considerations, ground contamination, wildlife habitats and protected species, flood risk and rights of light to neighbours. There are several others.

It seems only sensible that planning permission in principle should not be granted on whim or a hunch but on the basis of a sufficient level of information for all concerned to be confident that the land is suitable and that development can be delivered.

It is not at all clear how permission in principle will relate to technical details consent, or that other forms of consent that are currently required in sensitive locations, such as demolition consent, listed building consent or conservation area consent, will still be required.

Historic England has presented a case study that illustrates the issue well: brownfield land in an historic town centre. It may be possible to judge without too much detail that 10 housing units might be developed on the site. Permission in principle could, therefore, be given, but what may be very serious is the impact on below-ground archaeology, the massing of the building and the style of the architecture. If these issues cannot be dealt with thoroughly at the technical details stage, then nationally important archaeology and historical places, which I think all of us on the Committee would agree that we value, could be seriously at risk.

Chris Philp (Conservative, Croydon South)

Is not the whole purpose of the technical details consent stage that exactly the matters the hon. Lady has referred to will get considered fully at that point, prior to full permission being given? If we try to force all these things to be considered at the in principle stage, it will simply place obstacles in the path of the in principle consent being given in the first place by making it much more difficult to achieve.

Helen Hayes (Labour, Dulwich and West Norwood)

What I am not clear about is the relationship between in principle consent and technical details consent if something as significant as a Roman fort underneath a site or other important archaeological considerations emerges at the technical details stage that would override the suitability of the principle of development on the site. What is the relationship between the two forms of consent, and can development be refused on principle at the technical details stage? That is unclear, and many of the important stakeholders, including Historic England, the National Federation of Housing Associations, and the Town and Country Planning Association, have made representations to this Committee along those lines.

Gareth Thomas (Labour/Co-operative, Harrow West)

One thinks at the moment of the flooding that is taking place in many parts of the country. From time to time, there will be applications to build on a floodplain. Would my hon. Friend’s amendment potentially give a developer an indication of what might be acceptable to be built on a site that is in a floodplain, bearing in mind the potential risk to exacerbate flooding down the line?

Helen Hayes (Labour, Dulwich and West Norwood)

I thank my hon. Friend for his helpful intervention. What would arise from the adoption of amendment 285 is the provision in the regulations whereby development in flood risk areas, including the issue of whether or not a development is in the floodplain, should have been identified and that information set out prior to permission in principle being granted. That would give some security to communities that development is not being undertaken in an irresponsible way.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

I refer my hon. Friend back for a moment to the intervention from the hon. Member for Croydon South. I think that part of the discussion that we had in the Committee last Thursday was exactly about that question of what would happen if something has permission in principle but it is then discovered that the site is an important archaeological site. Can the permission in principle be removed? I think there was clarification from the Minister, but perhaps he could return to that issue at some point today to say whether or not the permission in principle would be removed on that basis.

Helen Hayes (Labour, Dulwich and West Norwood)

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. In drawing to a close, I simply say that the amendments taken together seek to ensure that permission in principle is underpinned by a sufficient level of knowledge about the site and its context, so that it is genuinely meaningful both to local communities and developers. Without that, I fear that developers will find this device to be a hollow one that provides no certainty at all, and communities will simply be let down and will feel the need to object to and challenge the process at the technical details stage, or through the courts.

I hope the Minister will consider the amendments and provide reassurance about the issues I have raised.

Seema Kennedy (Conservative, South Ribble)

I will speak quickly about amendments 285 and 285, which were tabled by the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood. Referring to what my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough said, I think that the whole thrust of these clauses is to have permission in principle to allow people to start building quickly, and attaching too many conditions would slow the process down. I speak as somebody who has acted as a developer, developing a piece of land that had been occupied by Courtaulds for 50 years. It is highly contaminated, but the cost of decontamination has been gradually coming down during the last 30 years.

I wanted to ask the hon. Lady about paragraph (a) in amendment 284. Are there not already adequate provisions in environmental law, land law and laws of tort that cover that material? She talked about risk and knowledge. Currently, there is a good balance in the Bill between the knowledge that a developer would have and the risk they are willing to take, whereas the paragraph (b) of the amendment would put more of that risk on to the taxpayer. Again, it would slow down the process and put more of the burden on the public purse rather than on the developers.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Gray. I rise to support the amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood. I seek further clarification from the Minister following our discussions on Thursday. Unusually, I want to thank him for putting the policy factsheet on permission in principle into the House of Commons Library yesterday. I think he intended to help us get a better understanding of what the Government seek to achieve in this part of the Bill.

Gareth Thomas (Labour/Co-operative, Harrow West)

When my hon. Friend found the Minister’s policy statement, did she by any chance find attached to it the operational document that the National Housing Federation and the Government were apparently going to publish on how voluntary right to buy will work?

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

Unfortunately, unless I missed it, there was not an operational document attached. Perhaps that is something about which we will get some clarification from the Minister. After all, we do not have many sittings left to be enlightened about the contents of the operational document. Presumably, it will come forward very quickly indeed.

I was somewhat unusually in the middle of thanking the Minister for the document. However, unfortunately, when I actually read the document, I thought, “This provides more questions than answers about how permission in principle will operate in practice”, so I have a few questions to ask the Minister this morning. There are now not three but four ways to get planning permission in this country. We know from our discussion on Thursday that the first way is through land being placed on a brownfield register. The second is clearly outlined in the factsheet, which states:

“The Bill will allow permission in principle to be granted automatically when housing is allocated in future local and neighbourhood plans or identified on brownfield registers.”

We need clarity from the Minister on that very strange wording. Does “future” mean “from now on”? In other words, does it mean that all of the current plans that have been adopted are not the plans on which permission in principle will be granted? Does it mean that it will be granted for new plans that will presumably start at some time that will be set out in regulations? Does it apply to neighbourhood plans that perhaps were approved just last week following a referendum? The factsheet very clearly says “future”, so one has to assume that it does not mean the ones that are currently in existence.

That is a really important point, because in our discussion on Thursday it was suggested that permission in principle will be attached to plans that have already been adopted. We are totally unclear, on the basis of that document, about which plans we are talking about. Are they the ones that have been adopted? Will there be a new system where all the plans have to be redone? Will they go through a process that we do not know about at the moment so that permission in principle can be given? I was really surprised to see that in the document following our discussion on Thursday when no mention was made of the confusion about what plans we might be talking about.

There is a third possibility for getting planning permission, which seems to go direct to the local authority. A paragraph in the document states:

“Recognising the specific challenges that developers of smaller sites can face, the Bill will also make provision for permission in principle to be granted for minor development on application to the local authority.”

Through what process will they make an application to the local authority, and what role will there be for local people having a say? Do the sites have to already be on the brownfield register, or is this in addition to the register? Such matters are incredibly important and will affect all our constituencies and our constituents’ ability to have a say over what development takes place in their area.

I have another question for the Minister, although how he will answer when he is not listening is beyond me. Nevertheless, the document states:

“Permission in principle will only be granted where development is considered to be locally acceptable in principle.”

How will that be known? By what process will people be consulted to give their views on a development, particularly since the paragraph above states that developers can go direct to the local authority? We do not know whether that bypasses the local community or whether it goes via the brownfield register or a local or neighbourhood plan. Those are my questions.

The final mechanism for getting planning permission is where a local authority is designated and people can choose to go directly to the Secretary of State to get planning permission. There could be four ways to get planning permission, or there could be three ways. We are not absolutely clear. Unfortunately, the document, which I know was intended to be helpful, has not given us the answers that we sought on Thursday. Perhaps the Minister will come back and clarify the issues for us this morning.

There are a couple of other matters in the excellent amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood that need to be emphasised. The document that was placed in the House of Commons Library yesterday states:

“The Government has engaged widely with a range of key stakeholders with different interests—including local government, planning sector, house builders, other developers, lenders, and environmental and community groups. This engagement has been tremendously useful and has influenced our thinking. We look forward to continuing discussions as we further work up the finer details, and expect to publish a detailed consultation later this year.”

Who have the Government consulted about the proposals in the document? Yesterday, I contacted several local authorities, a few developers, and some of the main planning umbrella organisations. None of them had been consulted on the proposals. If the Government are going to put that in a document in the House of Commons Library, we need to have some information demonstrating to us who has been consulted and what they said. The summary on my piece of paper does not tell us what they said, let alone who they are. That is a major problem for us when debating the clauses. There is no doubt that it is helpful to have that document, but it would have been more helpful to have had it last week.

Yesterday, we got two consultation papers—one on the equality statement on the proposed changes through permission in principle and other elements of the Bill, and one on the operation of permission in principle—but I hope it will not have escaped members of the Committee that we discussed some of those issues on Thursday afternoon, in advance of the consultation papers being issued. I am not sure whether that is just tardiness on the Government’s behalf or whether there is more to it, but hopefully we will be able to return to the contents of the consultation documents at some later stage, because they go through a lot of the issues that my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood questioned earlier about the exact nature of brownfield and how the Government will define “affordable housing”. All those sorts of things are in the consultation documents.

Personally, although the Minister might have a different view, I think it would have been helpful if those consultations had taken place in advance of legislation being produced, rather than afterwards. It is not clear whether significant elements of the Bill will be able to be changed as a result of that consultation exercise because the Bill will probably have completed its passage through Parliament before the consultation reports. That begs the question of why the consultation is happening now. Perhaps the Minister will enlighten us on the consultation’s exact purpose.

As my hon. Friend said, these important concerns are not only being raised by Opposition Members. A number of people have written in to comment. I have brought a sample of five or six to mention this morning, but many, many different organisations from across the planning and housing sector have written in to say, “Look, we don’t really have a problem”—this is where we all are—“with permission in principle as a principle, but approving legislation without knowing exactly how it will operate and without ironing out the issue of what happens with regard to material considerations or technical details that happen, or are discovered, further down the line is a huge problem.”

Wildlife and Countryside Link reminds us all that the clauses are “profoundly radical” and are some of the most contentious in the Bill. Wildlife and Countryside Link says that we are allowing

“the Secretary of State to create a development order, for any land allocated for development in a qualifying document… that gives permission to development in principle.”

Wildlife and Countryside Link says that the Bill allows the granting of permission in principle whether or not the qualifying document is in place, or even in existence, when a local development order is made. That is getting to the nub of the question because, if the Wildlife and Countryside Link is correct, I do not see how it fits with what the Government are saying in this document—the one they put in the House of Commons Library—about future development plans and neighbourhood plans. Or are they in fact saying that this will be some future document, and it does not matter whether it is in existence at the moment because the Secretary of State will be able to grant permission anyway?

Does the document have to be in place? Is it a future document? How is the Secretary of State going to take note of that document? Does he need to take note of it, or can he just decide himself that site A in area B shall have permission in principle because someone has made an application directly to him?

Mr Bacon rose—

Gareth Thomas (Labour/Co-operative, Harrow West)

Is it about self-building?

Richard Bacon (Conservative, South Norfolk)

I will ignore that comment from the hon. Member for Harrow West and concentrate on my intervention. We have had enough parping from him for one day already. Does the hon. Lady think that it is just possible that the Secretary of State might choose to exercise his or her discretion? Where and when local communities are getting on with it and producing high-quality local neighbourhood plans, that can carry on, but where people—as is often the case—are taking longer than it took to fight the second world war to produce a local plan of any kind at all, the Secretary of State should have the power to act, and that is what the Bill gives him or her.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting intervention, but those two issues need to be separated. The first question to be asked, arising from what I think was the first part of his intervention, is: do we want a planning system where the Secretary of State has discretion to say that site A in area B can have a development?

Richard Bacon (Conservative, South Norfolk)

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

I will in just a moment, after dealing with the second part. The second question is: do we want a plan-led system that operates within fairly tight timeframes, and does not go on for years and years before a plan is produced? The answer is that yes, of course we all want that. We set out proposals in the Lyons review that would greatly speed up the plan-making process. We are all saying that we want our system to be plan-led. The question for the hon. Gentleman is: how does that sit with the discretion for the Secretary of State? Does the Secretary of State then have to take note of the local plan, or does he not?

Richard Bacon (Conservative, South Norfolk)

The answer to the hon. Lady’s question is that I want a planning system that works—one that occasionally has a bowel movement—rather than to hear the authentic voice of the planning blob, which we have been listening to for the past three quarters of an hour.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

Order. Before the hon. Lady replies to that point, I am allowing a fairly wide-ranging stand part-type debate on this, and so I will not call her to order. None the less, we should remind ourselves of the amendments which we are considering at the moment.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

Thank you, Mr Gray.

We know that the Government’s productivity plan indicated that the proposals for permission in principle would relate specifically to brownfield land, but the Bill itself—I think the Minister confirmed this on Thursday—places no such limitations upon it. Given the three methods that can now lead to permission in principle, this could be fairly widely applied. If it is going to be so widely applied, I hope that in his summing up the Minister will say what will happen to local communities, how they will have a say, and in particular what will happen if they are really unhappy about some of the details. My hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood was right to say that although people might have concerns or objections about building in a particular area, often these can be alleviated or ameliorated with some discussion about the type of materials to be used, or by more land being given over for environmental benefits or something of that nature. We are absolutely not clear how that happens in this case.

Peter Dowd (Labour, Bootle)

Does my hon. Friend agree that this is one of the most centralising pieces of planning legislation that this country has ever seen, dressed up as localism?

Gareth Thomas (Labour/Co-operative, Harrow West)

Stalinist!

Peter Dowd (Labour, Bootle)

Indeed, it is almost Maoist. Does my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham agree that the reality is that local people would rather trust local decision makers than centralised diktats from Secretaries of State?

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point and comes to the nub of what I want to ask the Minister. As requested by Wildlife and Countryside Link and many other organisations, he needs to confirm that the measures are not a contravention of article 6 of the Aarhus convention, which was ratified by the UK Government in 2005. I am sure the Minister knows, because he studies the convention over breakfast in the morning to ensure that all planning decisions that come to the Department do not contravene it, that the article sets out standards for public engagement, with particular regard to ensuring a strong local agenda. It is public engagement in its widest sense.

People are concerned that the Government proposals simply ditch the entire localism agenda and that they are instead adopting, as my hon. Friend just said, a highly centralist and top-down approach to how planning permission is granted.

Returning to public participation, because of the many ways in which people can get planning permission, the new system will be difficult to navigate not only for the public, who may want to have a say, but for developers, who will have to choose between three or four routes—we do not yet know how many—of getting planning permission. That seems unhelpful.

To emphasise what my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood said earlier, we learned from the Minister on Thursday that there are no time limits, so if a developer gets permission in principle through a mechanism about which we are not entirely clear at this point, it is possible that nothing will have happened 15 years down the line. What incentive does the system offer for a developer to build once it has permission in principle? It could simply do as developers do at the moment and hold on to pieces of land until the market improves. According to its market model, a developer may want to build 400 houses in a neighbouring borough and hold on to the piece of land until there is a downturn or something of that nature. The National Housing Federation wrote specifically about the proposal that it

“should be time-bound to incentivise delivery.”

We totally agree. Without time limits, we cannot see how the change will speed up planning and the delivery of new housing, which is what we all want. Planning is one thing, but getting houses built is what is really important. We just do not see how the measure will achieve that end without some timeframes.

I want to speak in support of paragraph (a) and also briefly on paragraph (b) proposed in amendment 285. It is incumbent on all of us, but in particular the Minister, given that it is his responsibility, to ensure that if additional burdens are placed on planning departments or a strong role is required from them to make these measures work, local authorities are given the resources to undertake that work. We know that they have had a 46% cut in funding in the last five years and that fees are not set at full cost recovery, so taxpayers make up the approximately £450 million needed to make planning departments function. A number of people have told us that this is a serious issue. It needs a serious response from the Government about how they are going to get the necessary resources into planning departments so that they can deal with planning well, respond quickly and easily to inquiries from the public and, critically, from developers, and turn round planning applications, technical details consent or anything that the new system requires of them both quickly and professionally. Without any measures in the Bill to tackle the lack of resources we cannot see how local authorities can respond in the way that the Minister expects.

Chris Philp (Conservative, Croydon South)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I will endeavour to be a model of brevity in opposing amendment 285—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] That is the most popular thing I have said so far.

I spent the five years prior to coming here running a business that financed residential development. I can tell the Committee that a grant of permission in principle is of great use to financing organisations in offering finance either to acquire land or to fund the professional fees associated with developing it. Even though not all the technical details will have been signed off at that stage, it will give both funders and the prospective developer a huge amount of confidence and a measure of certainty that a particular kind of development scheme can be brought forward. As such it will be extremely valuable and will undoubtedly expedite the process of development.

On the question of technical details raised by the hon. Lady the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood, I think it is reasonable that they are dealt with later. If we insist on them being dealt with up front, there will be significant associated costs that may deter acquirers of land or developers from proceeding with a project. If the subsequent technical investigation uncovers problems such as bats, newts or Japanese knotweed, developments can be fine-tuned to address those issues in granting detailed consent.

The hon. Lady mentioned Roman forts. My father is an archaeologist and has encountered many Roman forts in his career. It is generally possible to reconfigure developments to avoid causing disruption: for example, my father was involved with a Roman fort in Dover that was going to be destroyed by a road, and they simply lifted up the road to go over the Roman remains. There are always ways of changing developments to resolve whatever problem subsequent technical investigations uncover. If the hon. Lady looks in the basement of many buildings in the City, she will see Roman remains that have been preserved.

Helen Hayes (Labour, Dulwich and West Norwood)

The hon. Gentleman is making a helpful contribution. I am fully aware that in almost all circumstances it is possible to accommodate any constraints that might be found on a development site. The point is simply that there is a significant cost in doing that. If a developer is entirely unaware that the problem exists or even the potential that a problem exists, they may be biting off more than they can chew in seeking to bring forward that development.

Chris Philp (Conservative, Croydon South)

To that point I would say “Caveat emptor”—buyer beware. The developers should assess risk. If they choose to take the risk of not having done those investigations, that is their problem. Moreover, once they have got permission in principle, they will have the confidence to invest the money required to undertake those investigations.

Richard Bacon (Conservative, South Norfolk)

It is not also true that, were a developer to find that he or she had bitten off more than they could chew, in the words of the hon. Lady, then with the development in place it would be easier to sell on to another person or developer who could take the project forward?

Chris Philp (Conservative, Croydon South)

My hon. Friend is quite right. I also agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble, who said earlier that paragraph (b) of amendment 285 is unreasonable in proposing that local authorities bear the cost of these investigations. That is quite wrong. The developer who stands to profit should bear the cost of those investigations. That is currently the case and I believe it would be the case under the Bill. For those reasons I strongly oppose amendment 285.

Gareth Thomas (Labour/Co-operative, Harrow West)

I very much enjoyed the speech by the hon. Member for Croydon South, but I want to take the Committee back to the issue that underpins some of the Government’s intentions in this part of the Bill: the price of land. The price of land in London is probably the single biggest constraint on housing development, and in particular helping small housing developers to enter the market. I therefore find myself torn on the question of permission in principle. I recognise that for some developers it is potentially a helpful tool, but I worry that it will exacerbate the rise in land values in certain places, notably London, where by any definition land prices are rising extremely fast. Amendment 284 would help to control—a little—the cost of land for development by setting out clearly the expectations of the community in its broader senses for a particular spot of land.

I raised in interventions the example of the College Road site in Harrow town centre; it is the site of the former post office, which has lain empty and earmarked in theory for development for 10 years and more. Part of the reason for the failure to develop that site is that the purchasers bought it when land values in Harrow were at their highest, they had unrealistic expectations of the value they might extract from the site, and as a result they finally had to sell the site off. If the requirements in amendment 284 had been on the statute book 10 years ago, that developer might not have rushed quite so quickly to buy the site, or, if it had bought the site, would at least have had some sense of the community’s expectations of what might be appropriate on that site. In that sense, I think it is a helpful amendment.

I come to the example of flooding I gave in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood. I think in particular of a site in Keswick in the Lake district, which has been subject to particularly heavy flooding. I am sure the whole Committee sends its support to the people of Keswick, who have been so badly affected by flooding. I think of a small industrial estate in Keswick which houses a number of business and, indeed, a small museum, which might in future be a development site. However, it is close to the River Greta, which has once again flooded, despite some flood alleviation measures put in place since the last time it flooded. With amendment 284 in place, Sir James—

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

Order. Unless the hon. Gentleman has heard something that I have not, it is just Mr Gray. One day, perhaps.

Gareth Thomas (Labour/Co-operative, Harrow West)

You should be knighted for your service on this Committee, but I appreciate your guidance, Mr Gray.

There is a general need to give would-be developers on a floodplain some sense of what might be acceptable so as not to exacerbate the flooding risks.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. Is this not where paragraph (b) of amendment 285 would be extremely helpful? After the previous intervention, perhaps I should clarify that that paragraph would require the Secretary of State to ensure the provision of adequate funding to carry out the testing that is needed. That testing might be for the risk of flooding.

Gareth Thomas (Labour/Co-operative, Harrow West)

My hon. Friend makes a good point and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

Ministers have occasionally said that they want to help small and medium-sized house builders to increase their market share. Giving those developers much more certainty about what would and would not be acceptable on a site would surely reduce their costs over time and increase their chances of accessing sites that they can afford.

I would have thought that amendment 284 would appeal to the Government, given their enthusiasm for starter homes. Giving greater clarity to would-be developers about the proportion of starter homes required on a site as part of the suitable dwelling mix that a community might expect would surely both encourage the starter homes initiative that the Government want to push and give more certainty to developers.

Finally, I come to the question of the re-election of the hon. Member for South Norfolk. I paraphrase it in those terms because he prayed in aid with enthusiasm tall buildings in central London. I worry that his constituents might not share his love of tall buildings. I see their virtue in places such as Croydon; I am not quite so enthusiastic about the prospect of having them in central Harrow, and nor are my constituents. I have to confess that I do not know, but I suspect that the constituents of South Norfolk would not be too enthusiastic about the prospect of 20-storey blocks of flats being part of developments there or in the surrounding area.

Richard Bacon (Conservative, South Norfolk)

I can resist no longer—the hon. Gentleman is such fun. I am not suggesting 20-storey blocks of flats in South Norfolk or anywhere else. I pointed out that the Cadogan estate in Chelsea has slightly higher blocks. If he visited the self-build project known as “Elf Freunde”—meaning 11 friends; it is a German footballing pun—in central Berlin that produced 11 four-storey terraced houses for €220,000 each, he would see what I am talking about.

Gareth Thomas (Labour/Co-operative, Harrow West)

The hon. Gentleman provokes me to return to self-building and custom house building in a minute.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

Very briefly, perhaps.

Gareth Thomas (Labour/Co-operative, Harrow West)

Well, it is an important point, Mr Gray. I was not for a moment suggesting that the hon. Gentleman would be enthusiastic about a proposal for tall buildings, but there would be much less likelihood of his constituents being provoked by an application for an unnecessarily high development if the provisions in amendment 284 were on the statute book and would-be developers in South Norfolk knew that the community, South Norfolk Council and so on did not expect a development of more than, perhaps, 11 storeys, as I think he referred to in his Berlin example—

Richard Bacon (Conservative, South Norfolk)

Four storeys; 11 houses.

Gareth Thomas (Labour/Co-operative, Harrow West)

Oh, I beg his pardon: a development of four storeys, or even fewer. That would help to give some confidence to the community about potential developments. If the hon. Gentleman were to have the courage to resist the power of the Government Whips Office and back the amendment, I have no doubt that he would be smoothing the path a little to his re-election.

The hon. Gentleman provokes me to speak about self-build and custom housebuilding—

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

Strictly in the context of the amendment.

Gareth Thomas (Labour/Co-operative, Harrow West)

Indeed, Mr Gray, this is within the context of the amendment. Paragraph (b) of amendment 284 would give local authorities and broader communities in South Norfolk, Harrow and Dulwich and West Norwood the opportunity to send a signal that they want more self-built or custom built properties on a particular site. I hope that the hon. Member for South Norfolk would want to see a housing co-operative designated on many of the sites. Paragraph (b) offers the hope that some local authorities might want to do even more on custom and self-build. In that spirit, I support the amendments of my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

Mr Jackson.

Stewart Jackson (Conservative, Peterborough)

Don’t say it with such enthusiasm, Mr Gray. It will not be that bad, and I think I will be brief.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

It is simply that the hon. Gentleman was not standing up, so I was questioning whether he was seeking to catch my eye. If he wants to speak in the debate, he ought to stand up and let me know that he wants to speak.

Stewart Jackson (Conservative, Peterborough)

My Whip is giving me a strange look, so I will be quick. Before I start, I should parry the hon. Member for Bootle with hideous monstrous socialist carbuncles. I offer him the Chalkhill estate in Wembley and the Stonebridge estate in Harlesden as two great results of socialist architecture.

Moving on, the amendments are intellectually incoherent. They pray in aid a commitment to localism and local autonomy, but were they ever given effect they would be very prescriptive and present serious impediments to new house building. In fact, they would kill stone dead many marginal prospects for regeneration on brownfield sites across the country, and that is a serious concern.

Peter Dowd (Labour, Bootle)

It is a shame the hon. Gentleman mentioned brownfield sites, because I know one or two things about them, certainly in terms of my constituency. He talks about the amendment killing marginal developments, but some of the sites are so contaminated that the developments should be killed. The contamination is dreadful. The concern I have, which is missed out of these measures and I would like the Minister to comment on, is the testing done on those sites, which can be incredibly dangerous. Those tests should be done and should be codified.

Stewart Jackson (Conservative, Peterborough)

In fairness, I do not know the hon. Gentleman’s constituency as well as he does, but I have visited Bootle and seen the challenges with regeneration across Merseyside, with Scotland Road, Rock Ferry, Tranmere and other parts of Wirral. Looking at the whole country, there are marginal regeneration cases that have resulted in good-quality housing.

My second criticism of the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood is that there is no context. The context is that there are structure plans and local development plans that have gone through the proper processes of public engagement and formal consultation, and those plans are subject to the strictures imposed in primary legislation, including the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. A local planning authority should come to a settled view on what it wants to do with its land. The clue is in the name; the measure is a permissive capacity for the Secretary of State to intervene in extremis where a local authority has not brought forward appropriate land use plans. As my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South said so eloquently, to put these strict impediments on the face of the Bill would kill stone dead attempts to build more homes and to develop marginal units.

On the points made by the hon. Member for City of Durham, I was concerned by land banking so I looked at the Local Government Association figures from 2012. When one looks below the surface at the facts, the No. 1 factor in this was the capacity and expertise of the planning departments. If a legal duty is imposed on those planning officers to spend significant amounts of public money, both in consultation and viability assessments for these units, it would reduce the capacity of those local planning authorities to give permission. We need to look at the Secretary of State’s plans in that context.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that permission in principle should be given without adequate testing of those sites being carried out? We heard from the Minister on Thursday that it does not seem to be possible to remove permission in principle if subsequently a technical detail means that the development should not go ahead.

Stewart Jackson (Conservative, Peterborough)

We already have a vast array of assessments and objective criteria by which we measure developments. We have the local plans, structure plans, site location plans and viability assessments. We have vacant building credit, for instance, which is now in court as the result of a legal case. We have plenty of opportunities for engagement, even without talking about neighbourhood plans. The idea that the first base of the Secretary of State is to intervene straightaway is nonsense.

Finally, it ill behoves being lectured on localism by a party responsible for home information packs, eco-towns and the disaster of regional special strategy with Prescott’s density and parking targets, which gave rise to some of the worst-quality housing we have seen in this country since the war.

Brandon Lewis (Conservative, Great Yarmouth)

It has been enlightening to have effectively a second clause stand part debate on clause 102. The amendments clearly relate to clause 102, so I will respond to them in that context.

I was particularly taken by my hon. Friend’s comments about the Roman forts. I would encourage his father to visit the Caister Roman fort to see how we do it in Great Yarmouth and give us some views on how to get some development around that.

I was amused by the comments of the hon. Member for Bootle about a centralist approach, which I assume were tongue-in-cheek. In his opening remarks, my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough perfectly summed up what the amendments do. Having been a councillor for 11 years under a Labour Government, I know what centralism in local authority planning terms feels like.

With the best will in the world, the amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood miss a key point, which is that permission in principle is driven locally—planning permission in principle will come through decisions made by local people in their local communities. That is a fundamental fact. I know the hon. Lady was not here when we touched on that at the end of last week.

Amendment 285 would require the Secretary of State to set out in regulations that sufficient testing of a site must take place before permission in principle is granted. The regulations also set out that adequate funding is provided to carry that out. I will come back to that in detail in a moment.

I have two fundamental concerns about amendment 285. First, prescribing the particulars to be addressed when granting permission in principle builds unhelpful rigidity into the process. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South made the point very well. We have been clear that we consider the particulars to be granted permission in principle should be use, location and amount of development. The approach taken in the Bill is a prudent, balanced one that allows for the particulars to be set out in secondary legislation. It gives us the flexibility to ensure that permission in principle works as intended.

My second concern is the detailed nature of the issues that amendment 284 requires to be fully addressed at the permission in principle stage. We have been clear from the very beginning that, in order for the measures to deliver real change in unlocking sites and avoiding unnecessary costs, permission in principle should give up-front certainty on the core matters underpinning the basic suitability of a site, namely its use, location and amount of development, and allow matters of detail to be agreed subsequently, as we have outlined before.

Amendment 284 proposes that matters of detail, such as density, affordable housing provision, community and social infrastructure requirements, be settled at the permission in principle stage. Let me be clear that those are matters that should be addressed before development is allowed to proceed, and the local planning authority may well consider them when deciding whether to grant permission in principle. However, if we were to require those to be covered by permission in principle, far more detailed information and analysis would be required, which would entirely negate the value of the Government’s measures and effectively duplicate the existing outline planning application process. Matters such as affordable housing contribution and community infrastructure provision will be agreed and negotiated at the technical detail stage, in line with local and national policy.

On amendment 285, clause 102 will enable permission in principle to be granted when a site is allocated in qualifying documents. The Secretary of State will prescribe a qualifying document only if it has been through a suitably robust process, including public consultation and a site assessment. We intend to set out in secondary legislation that the qualifying documents will be local plans, neighbourhood plans and the brownfield register. Before allocating a site in a local plan, as I am sure Members will appreciate, local authorities already go through a detailed site investigation and assessment process as part of their strategic housing land availability assessment.

In the neighbourhood planning context, the neighbourhood planning qualifying body should carry out an appraisal of options and an assessment of individual sites if it intends to allocate sites for development. Any such appraisals carried out by qualifying bodies are subject to scrutiny by both the local planning authority and an independent examiner. Neighbourhood plans also go through a full referendum of the local community. That is absolute local power in the hands of local people—true localism.

Therefore, extremely robust testing already exists in plan-making processes, and the whole purpose of the permission in principle model is to draw on that and make the best use of all the local effort, detailed work and resource at the plan-making stage, so that we get back to what we should be aiming for, which is a plan-led system. As the Government’s measures propose to utilise existing plan-making processes, we do not anticipate additional burdens on local authorities.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

Can the Minister deal with the point about the nature of qualifying documents? People will have been involved in a process to put local plans in place, and in a consultation system, but they will not have understood that that will lead to permission in principle, because it was not there when they were involved in the previous process. Will the measures apply to plans developed from now on, or plans already in existence?

Brandon Lewis (Conservative, Great Yarmouth)

Local people go through the process in the full knowledge that they are looking to allocate land. One frustration expressed by areas—while travelling around the country, I have spoken to people in a lot of areas that have done both local and neighbourhood plans—is that they go through all that work and must then effectively do it all again for every individual planning application, which defeats the object of the work that they have done in the first place. Our proposals will back up the work that they have done.

I finish on this point. On the brownfield register, I can reassure the hon. Lady that we intend to require local planning authorities to assess the sites that they propose to put on local registers against criteria to be specified in regulations. That will ensure that the sites are suitable for housing. We will shortly consult on our proposed criteria. We expect them to assess whether sites are available and capable of being redeveloped for housing, and whether development is viable. Local planning authorities already take such matters into account when assessing potential sites in their strategic land availability assessments. Local authority decisions will have regard to the national planning policy framework and to local plans. Our intention is that local authorities will draw on existing strategic housing land availability assessment processes as much as possible to identify and test the suitability of sites for inclusion on the brownfield register.

We also have a rigorous new burdens assessment process in our Department to ensure that local planning authorities receive the relevant resources to meet their statutory obligations. I therefore ask the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendments.

Helen Hayes (Labour, Dulwich and West Norwood)

I thank the Minister for that explanation. It is good to hear proposals regarding some of the detail that might be included in the requirements for the brownfield register and the assessment process.

I remain unclear about the status of the proposed third route to gaining permission in principle—direct application to the local authority. I am unclear whether it might be possible to apply to a local authority for permission in principle for a site that is not on the brownfield register or in one of the other qualifying documents. If that is the case, what requirements for assessment and consultation will there be?

I want briefly to address Government Members’ comments about paragraph (b) in amendment 285. That proposal does not necessarily imply that costs should be borne by the taxpayer; it simply says that the Secretary of State should make provision for regulations that ensure there is adequate funding. Funding for local authority development management functions is an important issue, and we will return to it in the debates on some of the new clauses.

Points were made about environmental and other regulations, and I want the processes and guidance around permission in principle clarified. The hon. Member for South Ribble referred to her own experience, and I am sure that, as a developer, she was experienced and responsible in the projects she undertook. However, I have come across many developers in my constituency who have taken on sites, even under the current system, without knowing some of the constraints in terms of what lay under the ground or, sometimes, the demolition of the buildings on the site. Constraints exist anyway, and it is important that they are acknowledged up front in permission in principle. Unless they are, permission in principle becomes the emperor’s new clothes of the planning system—a piece of paper that purports to give someone permission, but which, when we delve down into the layers of detail and the constraints, offers only short-term certainty, leading to a whole lot of expense and heartache in the long term.

These were probing amendments, and I would like to return to this issue on Report, when we may have seen further detail from the Government. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

With this it will be convenient to consider the following:

New clause 19—Granting of planning permission: change of use to residential use—

“After section 58 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, insert—

‘58A Granting of planning permission: change of use to residential use

(1) efore planning permission is granted under section 58(1) for change of use of a building to residential use as dwellinghouses, the body considering granting planning permission must consider the impact of noise and other factors from buildings which have been in continuous and unchanged use for at least a year in the vicinity which would affect the amenity and enjoyment of the residents of the dwellinghouses.

(2) Where planning permission is granted under section 58(1) for change of use of a building to residential use as dwellinghouses, the permission must include conditions imposed on the persons granted planning permission in respect of the building changing use to—

(a) eliminate noise between the hours of 10pm and 6am from neighbouring buildings which have been in continuous and unchanged use for at least a year before the permission is given; and

(b) counteract any other impact seriously impairing the amenity and enjoyment of the residents and prospective residents of the dwellinghouses arising from neighbouring buildings which have been in continuous and unchanged use for at least a year before the permission is given.’”

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

I rise to discuss one of my passions: permitted development and what we do to try to overturn the changes the Government have made to permitted development rights. The new clauses tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East (Michael Dugher), myself and other hon. Members are extremely interesting and important. They seek to draw to the Minister’s attention a problem that has arisen from the granting of permitted development, with the conversion of office accommodation into residential accommodation.

To try to crystallise where we want to get to with the new clauses, let me explain what often happens under the change of use procedure, as property moves from office to residential. The new residential block, which might be in a commercial or retail area, could have a music venue next to it. That venue could have been there for many years, not causing a problem to anyone, but then it finds a residential block next to it and many people who are unhappy about the noise.

The issue is significant enough to have attracted a number of news reports and for the Mayor of London to have produced the “London’s Grassroots Music Venues Rescue Plan”, a report that came out of the music industry and some others. Small music venues act as important centres for cultural activity in our towns and communities. Grassroots music venues in particular act as important hubs for local music talent, offering a means by which musicians and performers may cultivate and nurture their creativity. Such venues are important to the future of the music industry in this country. The Mayor of London’s music venues taskforce report of October stated that grassroots venues in the capital had declined in number by a huge 35% in the past eight years. The new clauses seek to introduce measures into the Bill that would help to arrest that decline.

The report gives evidence to support the view that the decline in the number of venues has continued in lots of different areas and in a moment I will talk about some of its suggestions. The London Mayor commissioned the report, though it was driven by the music industry itself, but the issue is not peculiar to London. It is important to emphasise at an early stage in this debate that other cities are affected: Birmingham, Manchester, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Bristol, Plymouth, Newport and Swindon, to mention only a few. They have expressed concerns about the threat to their music industry, in particular from the change of use from office to residential.

Smaller towns are also affected, because of the restricted space that might be available in such areas and the restricted number of opportunities for music venues. Small towns could be most affected by even one block changing from office to residential without consideration at any stage in the process of what surrounds the office block and what problems might arise for residents.

I will be extremely brief about this, but the problem was pointed out to the previous Minister for Housing and Planning. When the far-reaching changes to permitted development were proposed, a number of us made important points about who was going to do the checks for prior approval and what prior approval encompassed. In the scheme that we ended up with, issues of that nature were not considered appropriate for prior approval, which is very much about traffic and other more technical aspects and not about whether the area is generally suitable for a change from office to residential. At the time, the Government suggested that the permitted development changes would be temporary, but now they are being made permanent.

It is the permanency of the changes that has added such acute tension to the industry, because of concerns about the extent to which developers proposing change from office to residential might have been held back by the temporary nature of the measure. They might have wondered whether they would get a development done on time, but now they will have complete carte blanche. We know we need more housing in this country and that office to residential might be a mechanism to achieve that. We have always argued that that should happen through a proper planning permission system and not one that seeks to work simply on permitted development, ultimately leading to problems for communities, exactly as these two new clauses seek to address.

It is not a matter of whether we have these changes but how we bring them about to ensure that proper planning matters are considered in detail and not swept under the carpet, as they are being by changes from office to residential that do not consider all of the issues that are important for the local area.

The music industry is saying that one of the main problems is that the guidance provided to planning authorities for how to deal with a grassroots music venue is simply insufficient. It says there is wording in the national planning policy framework and national planning policy guidance that is helpful, yet the onus falls on planning officers to identify impacts without specific guidance being made available.

The permitted development right enables offices to be converted into homes without having to apply for full planning permission, as I have just said. That bypasses environmental noise assessments. We all know that that should not be happening in any sensible planning system. Any sensible Government would not put in place a regime that allowed for a whole office block to be converted to residential without noise assessments being taken into consideration. That is not a noise assessment of the block itself; it is a noise assessment of the surrounding blocks and the impact that could have on the developments.

Venues have existed happily alongside office spaces for years. However, hon. Members will know what is happening now because we have all had complaints in our constituencies. Music venues are now subject to a lot of complaints about noise. That does not mean the residents are being unreasonable. Often they are being perfectly reasonable in the complaints they bring forward about noise going on to 2 am, sometimes 4 am. They might say they did not know about the music venue, how long it was there or the licensing conditions. That arises from the fact that those blocks did not get proper planning permission.

Some areas requested exemptions because of the nature of the music industry there. A number of councils and boroughs, particularly in London, came forward to the Minister to ask to be exempted from having to apply these permitted development changes because it would bring about particular problems in their area.

They were worried, first, about losing office space. Let us not forget that permitted development changes take office space away and that some inner city areas do not want to lose it. Secondly, the areas were not suitable because of the mix in their communities. Yet most of those areas were not allowed to apply exemptions. Over time, the number of exempted authorities has reduced drastically. I suspect, if the Government do not listen and bring forward changes, this will become a bigger problem, with an even bigger impact on the music industry.

The report carried out by the music industry and the Mayor suggests some helpful changes that the Government could bring about. They could, for example, consider the agent of change principle that operates in other countries for responsibly managing noise nuisance. An application is assessed in terms of what it will mean for the music industry: what does the change bring about in the community? Does it affect other businesses? We do not have that principle in the UK, and it is suggested that we should. Of course, proper planning procedures would enable that wider impact to be taken on board. The concept is interesting, and I wonder whether the Minister or his Department is considering it.

The Government’s position seems to be that the existing framework provides sufficient protection for music venues, but that is clearly not the case. If there was sufficient protection, we would not have music venue after music venue saying, “We are at risk of not being able to continue because of the complaints made to the local council.” As a result of such complaints, local councils, because they have already converted blocks to residential use, take action to close down the music venues, or to so restrict their operation that they are no longer able to function in a way that stimulates the music industry. There is a growing campaign to convince the Government that Status Quo is not good enough—I brought that in just to show that I know something about the music industry.

The situation is an unhappy one. The music industry feels under siege, and that sufficient recognition is not given to its needs, with newspaper headlines such as “Neighbours battle music venues over noise”. We do not want new residents feeling that they have to make complaint after complaint about music venues to get the local council to do something; that does not help anyone. We need the Government to take the matter on board. Both the Mayor’s report and other documents present a very clear analysis, showing that planning and licensing policy and fiscal policy struggle to balance the needs of grassroots music venues with those of residents and businesses. The increasing population means that residential development sits, in an unanticipated way, cheek by jowl with night-time activity, and there is nothing to prevent the venues from having to close.

Simply requiring planning officers and planning committee members to identify potential impacts on live music venues is not appropriate since, because of the permitted development system and the prior approval system, people who know an area in detail might never have been involved in the process. I know from a number of councillors that the first time they know there is a problem is when residents come to their surgeries and say, “We have just moved into a block that has recently been converted from office to residential use and we did not know, because no one told us, that there was a live music venue next door. We are really unhappy about that”. My point is that the Government cannot rely on planning officers or planning committee members assessing such issues because the decision to do so might never have been anywhere near them.

If the council ultimately decides that it wants to do something more about that issue, the report also states that there is a need for training and guidance on music venues, because most local authorities do not know how to manage these new housing developments that are in close proximity to music venues. That is because before the permitted development changes they would not have allowed a housing development in that particular area, but now, of course, with the permitted development changes and the prior approval system, they feel pretty powerless to address such matters.

There is a whole issue, which I hope the Minister can address, about what change can overturn the permitted development system, and about going back to needing a full planning application and planning approval for large changes of this nature, while at the same time ensuring that council officers are trained and have the necessary skills to handle these fairly complex issues.

Too often what happens is an application goes through the environmental health aspect of a council and it is simply overwhelmed. Again, we have had a number of councils coming forward and saying, “Look. We’ve got lots and lots of complaints about these music venues. We want you—the local authority—to go and carry out testing to see whether these levels of noise are too high, or whether this is noise nuisance.” Local authorities simply do not have the resources to undertake those assessments.

It has also been suggested that local authorities should consider the use of an article 4 direction to protect music venues. As we all know, an article 4 direction—

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

Order. I am reluctant to interrupt the hon. Lady, who has had ample time to expand on her point, but I think that she has probably made the point in general. Article 4 directions do not actually come within the finer points of the new clauses that we are considering. I suspect that she may be coming towards the end of her remarks.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

I am indeed, Mr Gray—absolutely. The point I was making about article 4 decisions is that they had been suggested as a way of addressing the issue, but in practice councils are saying that article 4 decisions are not a suitable mechanism to help them do that, because it is often too difficult to get an article 4 decision and to get it in the areas affected. Mr Gray, you are absolutely right.

I think that this is an important issue for the Committee to consider. There is an increasing volume of permitted development that is seeking to convert office property to residential property, so the issue is likely to grow and the problem will be exacerbated in future if the Government do not take some action.

I hope that we will hear from the Minister about how he might seek to work with the Mayor—

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

I am looking forward to hearing from the Minister.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

—and with other local authority officers about how to address these issues.

Gareth Thomas (Labour/Co-operative, Harrow West)

I rise to support these new clauses. To me, they seem to make eminent sense. They are not an over-the-top provision and they are not creating a particularly onerous regulatory burden. However, they are seeking to re-establish a balance between, on the one side, the need and the appetite for new housing that all Committee members report and, on the other side, the need to maintain centres of cultural activity.

My hon. Friend has just set out some of the rationale for these amendments. I want to draw the Committee’s attention to what motivates my support for the new clauses. I am motivated in part by the experience of one of the grassroots venues that has closed in my constituency. The Rayners pub used to host jazz and ska nights on a regular basis, and when it closed there was a long campaign to stop it being earmarked for development. The campaign was led by an excellent local resident, Bill Ashton, who was then the conductor for the National Youth Jazz Orchestra. He was rightly concerned to protect a local music venue, and he argued that very few such venues in outer London hosted jazz and ska nights. My worry is that, without the amendments, the environmental health concerns that my hon. Friend alluded to will continue to increase the pressure on licensing authorities to take away licences for music venues.

The Trinity pub in my constituency is still very much going on. It has two floors and the upper floor often hosts small bands, or bands that have not yet made it. There are many offices within the vicinity of that pub. It is an excellent pub—Labour-supporting, which is an additional benefit that the Trinity brings—and I would not want to see it forced to stop allowing performances by local and other bands as a result of the pressure that may or may not come from those who move into homes where there were once offices.

Richard Bacon (Conservative, South Norfolk)

Having visited the National Youth Jazz Orchestra with the all-party group on jazz, I am keen, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman is, to hear what the Minister will say to protect jazz.

Gareth Thomas (Labour/Co-operative, Harrow West)

Again, I gently encourage the hon. Gentleman not to go for a long liquid lunch, but to be back promptly to be able to hear the Minister when he declaims on this subject. I am glad he is an enthusiast for the National Youth Jazz Orchestra, but it is not only jazz that might be affected in future; a host of other genres might also be affected. I hope the hon. Member for South Norfolk is not in a parochial phase, but that he might be willing to recognise that the idea of a European city of culture bid from outer London—something for which I have campaigned for some time—might benefit from the provisions in the amendment. The pressure on music venues to close might not be there and there would be opportunities for more parts of our great capital city to benefit from the European city of culture and provide an additional range of cultural activity for people in the area.

My hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham rightly dwelt on the Mayor of London’s music venue taskforce. I am not a huge fan of the current Mayor of London, but I give him credit when it is due on occasion. His taskforce has shone a spotlight on the closure of grassroots venues—a 35% decline, as my hon. Friend said, in the past eight years in London. That is deeply worrying and ought to be a wake-up call for us all, not only in this Committee but across London, to see what else we can do to make sure there is not pressure to lose such venues.

My hon. Friend rightly highlighted the fact that London has borne the brunt of the closure of music venues, but it is not only in London where music venues have closed; Birmingham and Manchester have seen small music venues closing, as have Edinburgh and Glasgow—of course, Scotland is outwith the scope of the Bill—and Bristol, Plymouth, Newport and Swindon have all seen important local music venues closing. We must do more to stop such local venues closing in future.

As my hon. Friend has alluded to, it is clear that there is insufficient guidance for our planning authorities to stop the closure of music venues.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

I remind the Committee that we are considering the following:

New clause 19—Granting of planning permission: change of use to residential use—

“After section 58 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, insert—

‘58A Granting of planning permission: change of use to residential use

(1) Before planning permission is granted under section 58(1) for change of use of a building to residential use as dwellinghouses, the body considering granting planning permission must consider the impact of noise and other factors from buildings which have been in continuous and unchanged use for at least a year in the vicinity which would affect the amenity and enjoyment of the residents of the dwellinghouses.

(2) Where planning permission is granted under section 58(1) for change of use of a building to residential use as dwellinghouses, the permission must include conditions imposed on the persons granted planning permission in respect of the building changing use to—

(a) eliminate noise between the hours of 10pm and 6am from neighbouring buildings which have been in continuous and unchanged use for at least a year before the permission is given; and

(b) counteract any other impact seriously impairing the amenity and enjoyment of the residents and prospective residents of the dwellinghouses arising from neighbouring buildings which have been in continuous and unchanged use for at least a year before the permission is given.’”

Gareth Thomas (Labour/Co-operative, Harrow West)

I am grateful for the opportunity to resume where I left off, Mr Gray. I hope that Conservative Members, particularly the hon. Member for South Norfolk, have had a good lunch and continue to look forward with enthusiasm to the Minister’s response to the new clauses, not least out of concern for and interest in jazz at small venues, but also out of more general interest in the concerns of small music venues that may be at risk.

Richard Bacon (Conservative, South Norfolk)

Mr Gray, for the record I feel I should point out that I have had no lunch at all. The time I had allocated for lunch was taken up with that vote we have just had and I just managed to eat a banana on the way up here.

Gareth Thomas (Labour/Co-operative, Harrow West)

The hon. Gentleman has, I am sure, secured the sympathy of the whole Committee. Anyone reading the extracts from Hansard of this section of the debate will be instantly sympathetic.

As well as paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham for the way she introduced this debate, I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East, who has championed the new clauses and worked with a number of organisations within the music industry concerned about the impact of planning legislation on music venues. It is in part through his work, as well as the work of the industry itself, that the idea of trying to write into legislation the principle of an agent for change concept being established in planning law has come to fruition. The industry points to a number of examples where this principle is already written into law. I am told it has been particularly successful in Melbourne in Victoria, Australia, and I think it is well worth looking at in the British context, not least given the sharp decline in music venues in London.

On Thursday evening we will all go back and Government Members will celebrate the fact that the legislation has got through its Committee stage and that they have successfully resisted any temptation to engage with the Bill in a critical way. They might want to go out on the town to celebrate, and look for a music venue. Perhaps the hon. Member for Peterborough will want to go out to see an ABBA tribute band—he has the look of someone who likes that type of music—

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

Order. Before lunch we had a reasonably expansive debate on this subject. I remind the Committee that we are discussing two new clauses which discuss the way in which offices may or may not be converted into dwellinghouses and the effect that may have on the music industry. That is not an opportunity for an extensive discussion about the music industry and the various kinds of music we might enjoy. We have to focus entirely on the two new clauses, leaving aside wider discussion of the music industry.

Gareth Thomas (Labour/Co-operative, Harrow West)

I am extremely grateful to you, Mr Gray, for your guidance, which further confirms my view that a knighthood should be pressing for you.

My point is simply that there are many forms of music outwith those that attract large crowds that are performed in small music venues; those venues are under threat and we should do more to protect them. New clauses 19 and 20 wold give us the opportunity to make some progress in offering that kind of protection. The Minister for Housing and Planning is perhaps a fan of Duran Duran, again not necessarily a band that would perform—

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

Order. In the event that the two new clauses became part of the Bill, it would then of course become possible to encourage all kinds of music and all kinds of other things that might create noise. This is not an opportunity for those kinds of discussion. We must focus our attentions entirely on the text of new clauses 19 and 20.

Gareth Thomas (Labour/Co-operative, Harrow West)

Again, Mr Gray, I welcome that guidance.

The particular benefit of new clause 19 is to place on anyone who wants to convert offices to other buildings in an area with a music venue nearby the duty to make clear the potential impact of the noise from that music venue. It is in that spirit that new clauses 19 and 20 are tabled—to bring the agent for change principle into UK law. They are entirely sensible provisions, and with that I urge the Committee to support new clauses 19 and 20.

Helen Hayes (Labour, Dulwich and West Norwood)

I will be brief. I want simply to point out that one of the key problems with the Government’s extension of the permitted development rights is that they allow change to happen without consideration of local economic impacts.

We know that the cumulative loss of employment space as a consequence of permitted developments rights is a significant concern across London. We also know that there are no safeguards on the quality or the suitability of development. That is illustrated by the potential loss of music venues, which play an important cultural and community role in the locations in which they are situated. This is yet another example of the ways in which the Government are seeking to achieve short-term progress at the expense of longer-term outcomes and the quality and character of our neighbourhoods. I therefore very much support the new clauses.

Brandon Lewis (Conservative, Great Yarmouth)

The aim of new clauses 19 and 20 is effectively twofold: first, to ensure that, where planning permission is granted for change of use to a residential use, the new residents’ amenity is protected; and secondly, to require that the cost of any mitigation measures needed to protect residents’ amenity, particularly against noise generated, is borne by the developer. I believe that the new clauses are unnecessary. They will impose inflexible requirements on local authorities and others where there are already appropriate protections to address these issues. One of my hon. Friends made that point this morning in our extensive debate.

In fact, the national planning policy framework itself incorporates the agent of change principle. It makes clear that businesses that want to develop should not have unreasonable restrictions put on them because of nearby changes to land use. Our thriving city centres are successful because they contain a vibrant and diverse mix of uses. It is therefore inevitable that modern city centre living will be co-located alongside other commercial and, as we heard, leisure uses. That is what makes our cities such dynamic places to live, work and, indeed, play.

In the case of planning permission granted by local planning authorities, they must decide the applications in accordance with the local plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Consideration of amenity impacts such as noise and disturbance is already a well established part of decision making, and the NPPF is a material consideration. National planning policy already establishes the principle that local authorities should approve applications for change of use from commercial to residential where there is an identified need for additional housing in that area—one thing that I hope we all agree on is the need for extra housing.

The framework also includes strong protections against pollution. It makes it clear that the planning system should prevent new and existing development from being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of pollution, including noise. The effects, including cumulative effects of pollution on health, the natural environment or general amenity, and the potential sensitivity of the area or proposed development to adverse effects from pollution, should be taken into account. In addition, planning decisions should aim to avoid noise which gives rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life as a result of new development.

The framework goes further by making it clear that existing businesses that want to develop in continuance of their business should not have unreasonable restrictions put on them because of changes in nearby land use since they were established. The planning guidance supporting the framework is clear that the potential effect of the location of a new residential development close to an existing business that gives rise to noise should be carefully considered. The guidance underlines planning’s contribution to avoiding future complaints and risks to local businesses from resulting enforcement action. To avoid such situations, local councils are encouraged to consider appropriate mitigation, including designing the new development to reduce the impact of noise in the local environment and optimising the sound insulation provided by the building envelope.

I am keen to look further at this matter. I have been working with my hon. Friend the Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy, who is arranging for me to sit down and meet some of the music organisations that were mentioned this morning. If a business is working and a nearby building converts to residential housing, that is a good thing; we want more housing. It would be entirely wrong of the people who moved into the residential housing to complain about the business that existed before the residential housing was there. When I was the Minister with responsibility for pubs, I came across examples of residents who complained about a pub that had been there for 150 years two weeks after moving in next door. We need to ensure that those businesses are protected.

In December 2014, we made amendments to the planning guidance to underline planning’s contribution to protecting music venues, but I am interested in looking further at that issue. As I said, my hon. Friend the Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy has arranged for me to meet with those organisations shortly.

Gareth Thomas (Labour/Co-operative, Harrow West)

The Minister has virtually answered my question. I was going to ask whether he would meet with a delegation, and he has said that he will. Will he commit telling us before Report stage whether he is minded to do anything else in planning law to help the music industry, which is worried about the future of some venues?

Brandon Lewis (Conservative, Great Yarmouth)

The hon. Gentleman is right that I will meet with those organisations. My hon. Friend the Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy, who has responsibility for the creative arts, has arranged for me to sit down and meet with them. If we were to do anything in the Bill, I would make Members aware of that before Report stage. The new clauses are not needed because the planning powers are already there; we just have to make sure they are properly used, but I will talk to the industry about that before we go forward.

With that caveat, the approach set out in the Bill provides flexibility and enables local planning authorities to protect new residents’ amenity, particularly from the impact of noise, while ensuring that we protect established businesses from disruption to their operations. Local authorities, when they look at such situations and organisations, look at what is said in this House. The debate we have had today will very much inform their decisions.

On new clause 20, permitted development rights for change of use play an important role in the planning system. They provide flexibility, reduce bureaucracy and allow the best use to be made of existing buildings. In 2014-15, they provided 8,000 much needed new homes, particularly in our capital city. In introducing permitted development rights, the Secretary of State can make provision for local authorities to approve measures relating to the impact on local amenity, including from noise, where development is permitted for a change of use.

The hon. Member for City of Durham touched on the article 4 situation. I gently say to her that she should challenge local authorities that say it is difficult to use, because there is no evidence to back that up claim. The article 4 process is straightforward and simple. Local authorities should look at other authorities that have used it so they can use it appropriately and correctly. More broadly, if there are genuine concerns about the impact of permitted development rights on new residents’ amenity, including noise impacts, local councils have the ability to bring forward an article 4 direction. Article 4, in and of itself, does not prevent development; it requires the planning application to be considered before a building can be converted. It is an immensely powerful tool for local authorities to use. They just need to ensure they are using it appropriately and in a focused way.

The licensing process also provides an adjudication mechanism between local residents and licensed premises by which practical measures can be introduced to control and mitigate noise. Statutory guidance advises that licensing authorities should be aware of the need to avoid inappropriate or disproportionate measures that could deter events that are valuable to the community. We can all think of events in our own constituencies, such as live music, that bring the community together and are a valuable source of community spirit. I do not consider the new clauses necessary and I invite the hon. Lady to withdraw them.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

Probably nothing crystallises better the different approaches of the Opposition and the Government than permitted development. We are arguing for a proper system of planning approval that looks at all the issues likely to arise from a particular development, and for mitigation if planning is approved, or for planning to simply not be approved. The previous planning Minister said he was introducing a degree of chaos into the system. We have ended up with a permitted development system, a prior approval system and an article 4 direction, but none of those elements adds up to a planning system that can control the sort of problems we are talking about.

We at least agree across the Committee on our analysis of the problem: these developments are leading to complaints from residents about noise. I heard what the Minister said about meeting the groups involved. Clearly, this is a problem; if it was not, the Mayor would not have set up a taskforce and the music industry would not be saying it is a real problem. I hear what the Minister says about meeting representatives of the industry and others to see if something can be done to improve the current unsatisfactory situation for residents and the music industry. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

The new clauses will be considered later on in our proceedings.

Clause 105 - Planning applications that may be made directly to Secretary of State

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

I beg to move amendment 286, in clause 105, page 49, line 4, at end insert—

“(1) In section 62A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for ‘Secretary of State’ substitute “in respect of land in Greater London by the Mayor of London and in respect of land in England outside of Greater London by the Secretary of State” except in subsection (1)(a).

(1A) In section 62A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (when application may be made directly to in respect of land in Greater London the Mayor of London and in respect of land in England outside of Greater London to the Secretary of State), in subsection (1), for paragraphs (a) and (b) substitute—

“(a) the local planning authority concerned is designated by the Secretary of State for applications of a description specified in the designation;

(b) the application falls within that description.””

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

That was just a minute.

Brandon Lewis (Conservative, Great Yarmouth)

That is a challenge for me, Mr Gray. I will keep an eye on the clock to see if we can improve on the two and a half hours we have spent on one clause thus far today.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

No repetition or deviation.

Brandon Lewis (Conservative, Great Yarmouth)

I will endeavour to take the hon. Lady’s comments on board.

If the amendment were accepted, applications for major and potentially for very minor developments—right down to applications for one house—in underperforming London boroughs could be submitted directly to the Mayor. For a typical London borough, if applicants chose to apply directly to the Mayor, that could run to literally hundreds of applications per year. I suspect that my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon and others would agree that that would not fit in with the important role of the Mayor as a strategic decision maker.

It is right that the Mayor of London has that important role in strategic decisions affecting the capital. He already has the power to decide to call in applications of potential strategic importance—for example, when more than 150 dwellings are proposed. We are taking steps in the Bill for the Mayor to set his own thresholds in high-growth areas, through the London plan. The clause will allow us to extend our successful designation process to assess performance in applications for non-major developments. The amendment has the potential to significantly change the Mayor’s role and go beyond providing that vital strategic direction in decision making across the capital. It would also have implications for the performance regime in and of itself. Planning applicants might expect the Mayor to be part of the safeguards, rather than the decision maker on how quickly their applications should be determined. I will continue to look at this issue and to engage with my hon. Friend, but at this stage I urge him to withdraw the amendment.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

I listened carefully to what my hon. Friend the Minister had to say. The thrust of the amendment was to ensure that applications of strategic importance—clearly not minimal or de minimis applications—could be made directly to the Mayor. I am grateful for the Minister’s reassurance that he is prepared to continue to consider the issue, because it is important that the potential strategic importance of applications is considered. Given his words of comfort, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 107 - Development consent for projects that involve housing

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

The clause will enable some housing developments to be determined under the national infrastructure planning regime, if they are part of a larger mixed development that includes infrastructure. On the face of it, we have no objection to that in principle, but we are concerned about how the process for granting approval is going to work in practice. It brings me back to the discussions we were having this morning about whether there are going to be three or four ways in which applications for housing can be determined. We have come to an additional way, so perhaps we are now on the fifth way for applicants to get planning permission for new housing.

A number of organisations, including the National Infrastructure Planning Association, have written to the Committee to say that there is a need for greater clarity in the Government’s guidance. It is very welcome that we received the briefing note for the guidance relating to clause 107 before we came on to debate it. I do not know who is responsible for that, but they should be commended, because it is clearly much better that we get the documents that are relevant to a clause before we debate it, rather than afterwards, which has typically been the case with the Bill so far.

The briefing note states that the clause will

“minimise regulation and provide maximum flexibility”

and that

“more detailed issues relating to the inclusion of housing will be covered in guidance.”

It goes on to tell us about some of those issues, which include

“the types of infrastructure that housing could be included with; the two circumstances in which housing… might be built…; the location of housing in relation to the infrastructure; the assessment of housing proposals; and how the housing element of any nationally significant infrastructure project will be treated at each stage of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process and the considerations that will need to be taken into account by developers.”

I was reassured when I read that. I thought, “Good. We’re not exactly clear what the process will be and we’re not entirely sure what sorts of infrastructure projects it will relate to, but all we have to do is be patient and wait for the guidance, which will tell us all those things.” Unfortunately, the draft guidance does not do that job.

Taking the point about the infrastructure to which housing can be attached, the guidance just says:

“The Government does not propose to place limits on the categories of infrastructure project that may include housing.”

We are technically none the wiser and just have to assume that it could be any sort of infrastructure in almost any circumstances. Paragraph 20 outlines some of the restrictions that will be placed on the building of housing in certain areas and provides four examples, but it is unclear whether they are examples or the totality. The restrictions include

“sites protected under the Birds and Habitats Directives and/or designated as Sites of Special Scientific Interest;”

That is a good thing. Also included are:

“land designated as Green Belt, Local Green Space, an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Heritage Coast or within a National Park (or the Broads Authority);”—

again, we very much welcome that—

“designated heritage assets; and locations at risk of flooding or coastal erosion.”

Is that a definitive list or are they examples? The guidance is not clear whether they are the sorts of things that local authorities should take into account or whether they are the only things. Given the potentially extensive application of the clause, it is important that we get that information.

I will not detain the Committee any further on the guidance except to say to the Minister that I have been through it and cannot see where it sets out in detail how housing applications will be considered at each stage of the national infrastructure process. Will they have a particular designation, or will they just be considered as part of the overall scheme? Some clarification from the Minister would be extremely helpful.

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mr Gray. I will be relatively brief, but I speak to raise concerns about clause 107 with a particular example from my constituency in mind. The Mayor of London and Transport for London are consulting on a nationally significant infrastructure project, the Silvertown tunnel, which is a road tunnel linking the Greenwich peninsula to Silvertown Way north of the river. It is a locally contentious proposal for a variety of reasons, but primarily due to its impact on the local road network and already dire air quality.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham, I see nothing wrong with the principle of allowing housing to be built and this mechanism to be used if it is functionally linked to the infrastructure project under consideration. However, I have particular concerns about new subsection (4B)(b) which states:

“‘Related housing development’ means development which… is on the same site as, or is next to or close”.

I hope that the Minister can reassure me on this. I am concerned that in an infrastructure project such as that road tunnel, where I can see no housing that is functionally linked, this clause could allow for housing to be built in a different part of the borough, bypassing local accountability and any community influence, simply because there is a nationally significant infrastructure project in the vicinity and we have no idea what that means. I press the Minister to reassure me about what

“or is next to or close to”

might mean and whether any guidance will be forthcoming, or, if not, whether he will consider clarifying that part of the Bill. It is important that the housing that might be delivered through this mechanism is functionally, or more directly, linked to the infrastructure we are discussing than it might otherwise be.

Brandon Lewis (Conservative, Great Yarmouth)

The clause has the effect of allowing the Secretary of State to grant development consent for housing that is related to a nationally significant infrastructure project. We think it is important that we change things for national infrastructure projects so that there is an ability to have related housing linked in. I will answer the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich more directly in a moment. I appreciate that he has asked probing questions, and I am glad that he and the hon. Member for City of Durham made those points because, despite all that Opposition Members say about wanting more housing, at every stage of the Bill, they seem to making arguments against anything that will deliver more housing.

The Planning Act 2008 does not permit any consent for housing. That means that, when a developer wants to include housing as part of a nationally significant infrastructure project, they must make a separate application for planning permission under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. That is inefficient, because obtaining separate consent under a separate regime adds time and cost to developers.

The hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich made a point about community influence. It might be worth his looking at how the national infrastructure planning framework actually works, because, in that, local communities have a say in any proposals for their area. The applicants are required to engage with and consult local communities from the outset. Local authorities have a role in assessing the adequacy of that consultation. I go further, in that clause 107 amends section 115 of the Planning Act 2008, to add “related housing development” to the types of development for which the Secretary of State can grant development consent. Related housing development is defined in the amended section 115. I am happy to be clear on the Floor of the Committee that it is about related housing development.

The notes to which the hon. Lady the Member for the City of Durham referred use the word “includes”, so they are not exhaustive, but just a few examples. If enacted, the clause will allow development consent to be granted for housing where it is on the same site or close to a nationally significant infrastructure project or is otherwise associated with it. I refer hon. Members back to my quote from a few moments ago.

We propose to set out in more detail matters, such as the maximum amount of housing that may be consented, the location of housing and how applications that include housing will be assessed, in guidance. The clause itself requires the Secretary of State to take account of any matters set out in guidance when deciding an application for development consent. This reform will improve the nationally significant infrastructure planning process, by creating the opportunity for developers—bearing in mind that, on average, there are only 15 applications a year—to benefit from a more efficient process for these kinds of applications for housing that is relevant, appropriate or related to an national infrastructure project.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

I rise to emphasise to the Committee the point I made at the beginning of our discussion on the clause. To be clear, we are not objecting to the principle of having housing attached to large-scale infrastructure projects. We simply wanted to question the Minister on some of the details of the guidance. In scrutinising the Bill, it is important that we ask questions about whether the scheme will work in practice.

Clause 108 - Designation of urban development areas: procedure

Brandon Lewis (Conservative, Great Yarmouth)

I beg to move amendment 183, in clause 108, page 51, line 16, after “subsection (1)” insert

“in relation to land in England”.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment 184.

Brandon Lewis (Conservative, Great Yarmouth)

Amendments 183 and 184 make it clear that the duty to consult when designating land as an urban development area or establishing an urban development corporation will apply in England only, as planning policy in this respect is devolved. These are minor, technical amendments.

Clause 109 - Establishment of urban development corporations: procedure

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

I beg to move amendment 236, in clause 109, page 52, line 24, at end insert—

“(4) Section 136 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 [objects and general powers] is amended as follows.

(5) After subsection (2) insert—

‘(2A) Corporations under this Act must contribute the long-term sustainable development and place making of the new community.

(2B) Under this Act sustainable development and place making means managing the use, development and protection of land and natural resources in a way which enables people and communities to provide for their legitimate social, economic and cultural wellbeing while sustaining the potential of future generations to meet their own needs and in achieving sustainable development and place making, development corporations should—

(a) positively identify suitable land for development in line with the economic, social and environmental objectives so as to improve the quality of life, wellbeing and health of people and the community;

(b) contribute to the sustainable economic development of the community;

(c) contribute to the vibrant cultural and artistic development of the community;

(d) protect and enhance the natural and historic environment;

(e) contribute to mitigation and adaptation to climate change in line with the objectives of the Climate Change Act 2008;

(f) positively promote high quality and inclusive design;

(g) ensure that decision-making is open, transparent, participative and accountable; and

(h) ensure that assets are managed for long-term interest of the community.’

(6) Section 4 of the New Towns Act 1981 [The objects and general powers of Development Corporations] is amended as follows.

(7) For subsection (1) substitute—

‘(1) The objects of a development corporation established for the purpose of a new town or Garden City shall be to secure the physical laying out of infrastructure and the long-term sustainable development and place making of the new community.

(1A) Under this Act sustainable development and place making means managing the use, development and protection of land and natural resources in a way which enables people and communities to provide for their legitimate social, economic and cultural wellbeing while sustaining the potential of future generations to meet their own needs and in achieving sustainable development, development corporations should—

(a) positively identify suitable land for development in line with the economic, social and environmental objectives so as to improve the quality of life, wellbeing and health of people and the community;

(b) contribute to the sustainable economic development of the community;

(c) contribute to the vibrant cultural and artistic development of the community;

(d) protect and enhance the natural and historic environment;

(e) contribute to mitigation and adaptation to climate change in line with the objectives of the Climate Change Act 2008;

(f) positively promote high quality and inclusive design;

(g) ensure that decision-making is open, transparent, participative and accountable; and

(h) ensure that assets are managed for long-term interest of the community.’”

Stewart Jackson (Conservative, Peterborough)

For the record, can the hon. Lady dissociate herself from the comments of the witness from the Town and Country Planning Association? The TCPA compared the Government’s very sensible legislation to racially motivated zoning, which was struck down by the US Supreme Court. That was effectively nonsense on stilts.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

The point I remember the TCPA representative making—which is an issue that perhaps the Minister will want to deal with today—was that the Government appeared to be trying to put together the American zonal system of planning with our local plan-making system and that those two things do not sit very well together, and perhaps we should have one system or the other. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman if I have missed something else, because I was focusing on the difficulties that would be caused by having the two systems together.

Stewart Jackson (Conservative, Peterborough)

I do not want to try your patience, Mr Gray, but the hon. Lady is praying in aid the evidence of the TCPA. I raised the point that that evidence was very contentious. It made a number of assertions about the Bill from which I invited the hon. Lady to distance herself.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

Perhaps I should clarify for the hon. Gentleman that the evidence to which I am referring at the moment was put together by a whole range of different organisations, which go under the umbrella of Planning4People. This group said that they are trying to get back to an idea of town planning that did so much to lay the foundation of a civilised Britain, using democratic planning to put people at the heart of the process. This is relevant to the amendment because this group of planners are guided by a very powerful definition of sustainable development, which emphasises social justice as a key outcome. They also say that they want a real concentration on building places that are sustainable for future generations, not only to live in but to live decent lives in. They go on, very helpfully, to outline for us what some of those places would look like.

This means that there would be a concern to reduce inequalities of income and of access to education and health, and to promote places where individuals and communities can achieve lasting levels of happiness and wellbeing. I thought that Conservative Members could get behind this particular idea underpinning planning and, indeed, that they would relish getting behind a planning system that seeks to put the achievement of happiness and wellbeing at its heart. I am sure that we would all like our planning system to deliver that.

Planning4People is asking for a new legal duty in planning legislation that would ensure that planning is based on outcomes. It stresses in particular how sustainable development will be achieved, with the requirement to reduce social inequality, give councils back powers over permitted development and so on. That is what this amendment would do. I draw that particular publication to the attention of hon. Members, because I think that it sets out very clearly for us a context in which perhaps I can persuade the Minister that, in introducing urban development corporations, he will ensure that they are underpinned by some of the garden city principles that we want to see.

Could some consideration be given to capturing land value that could be used for the long-term benefit of the community? There could be community ownership of the land and long-term stewardship of assets. We touched on that in our discussion about how Letchworth had managed to do that and set up a community development fund for the future.

Peter Dowd (Labour, Bootle)

My hon. Friend mentioned wellbeing, which made me recall a speech by the Prime Minister—I pay huge attention to his speeches—in which he talked about wellbeing. He said:

“I am excited about this, because it’s one of those things you talk about in opposition, and say that this is something we ought to try and measure, get right, and understand”.

Does she agree that the Prime Minister is spot on in trying to ensure that wellbeing is at the front of Government policy?

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

Well, is not that interesting? We obviously have a convert to the cause in the Prime Minister, who will clearly join us in our efforts to get the pursuit of happiness built into the planning system. Let us hope he will send a quick text to the Minister so that we can get agreement on the amendment, because an excellent outcome to our deliberations would be to ensure that we got a planning system with some vision for the future built around sustainability principles, with wellbeing at its centre.

The amendment specifically asks the Minister to ensure that: urban development corporations have land value capture attached to them; there is community ownership of land and long-term stewardship of assets; there are mixed tenure homes affordable for ordinary people; there is a strong local jobs offer in the garden city; and there is high quality, imaginative design and generous green space, linked to a wider natural environment, including a mix of public and private networks of well-managed, high-quality gardens, tree-lined streets and open spaces.

The Opposition think it is extremely good that Ebbsfleet is being put forward as a garden city. The Labour party thought about that and put down the foundations for it about a decade ago. It is great to see that coming to fruition, but calling something a garden city does not make it a garden city. If it is going to be a garden city, it has to have high-quality gardens, tree-lined streets and open spaces, as well as

“opportunities for residents to grow their own food, including generous allotments”,

a strong cultural offer, and

“recreational and shopping facilities in walkable neighbourhoods”.

I do not think that we have touched on this so far in our deliberations, but if we are to produce and build truly sustainable communities, we have to think about how we encourage people to walk or cycle, or how we connect them through good, publicly accessible transport systems.

We need built into the legislation the principles of what will make up a garden city such as Ebbsfleet or any future developments that will come under UDCs. Otherwise, I am not sure—the Minister might know another way—how it will deliver a garden city as opposed to a UDC that will simply deliver new homes. Those new homes are very welcome—we are not against them—but we are concerned about the fact that there is nothing to ensure that a garden city emerges in any way at all.

The Minister seems to think I do not get out enough, so I just want to reassure him that I do sometimes go to see new developments and I did go to see Ebbsfleet. The developers are very keen to have good infrastructure underpinning that development. However, the urban development corporation that underpins Ebbsfleet does not require them to do any of this. That does not seem satisfactory. It is called a garden city, yet there is nothing that makes it a garden city.

If I have missed something in what the Minister is bringing forward for these new development corporations, I apologise and he can correct me, but as I read what is in clauses 109 and 110, I cannot see anything that aims to put into the Bill that these urban development corporationsmust address issues of sustainability. We want, for example, to see really good-quality houses built, but we also want to see zero-carbon homes. That is what was meant—I quote the Government expressly—when they said their aim for Ebbsfleet and garden cities generally was to provide

“high quality, attractive and sustainably constructed housing”.

How can the Minister be sure that that will be achieved without having something in the Bill about how these development corporations must address issues of sustainability?

Opposition Members feel strongly about this issue. We have argued long and hard for a new generation of garden cities. Many organisations, including the Campaign to Protect Rural England, have written to the Minister and to the Committee urging them to take on board what is in the amendment and to put more in the Bill so that we can ensure that we have the sort of development we want to see—an attractive environment with workable housing and social facilities, an amazing, visionary new place to live, an amazing regeneration of an area that we can all be proud of.

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I support the amendment. We all welcome development and new homes, but I strongly agree that garden cities and corporations, when they are bringing development forward, need to put sustainability and place making at the heart of their plans. That has a particular resonance with something that I am very passionate about, which is climate change and energy efficiency.

New subsection (2B)(e) would ensure that, in building new homes, UDCs would have to ensure that those homes and that development

“contribute to mitigation and adaptation to climate change in line with the objectives of the Climate Change Act 2008”.

We know that homes are central to the UK meeting its climate change targets and that meeting our EU obligations of 15% renewables by 2020 looks ever more precarious; a leaked letter from the Secretary of State only a few weeks back showed that. Homes have a crucial role to play.

The context at the moment for delivering sustainable homes is not great. The Government have scrapped the zero-carbon homes policy that was starting to bear fruit in many areas. The London Mayor has taken a different view and sought to put some of the provisions of that policy back in place through the London plan, and I welcome that. The context for bringing forward environmentally sustainable, high-quality homes has become more precarious and the amendment would go some way, in relation to UDCs, to making sure that sustainable homes are at the heart of what is built. That is important.

It goes back to the debate we had earlier. The hon. Members for Peterborough and for South Norfolk, and others, bemoaned the socialist architecture of the 1950s—I would call it brutalist, though they may not draw such a distinction—when homes and places for people to live were built that have not fared well over the decades. We have an obligation because the cost of retrofitting homes that fall below environmentally sustainable standards far outweighs that of the measures we need to put in place. We want to build homes that last for generations and are fit for people to live in. For that reason I support the amendment.

Helen Hayes (Labour, Dulwich and West Norwood)

I, too, want to speak briefly in support of the amendment. However the planning system is defined, it embodies a set of values and prioritises a series of outcomes. Garden cities of the past were so successful as communities, function so well and are such popular places to live in precisely because of the high aspirations and strong values on which they were founded and the extensive efforts to secure high-quality design and the long-term sustainability of the resourcing of those communities, in all sorts of different ways. That happened because their founders were thinking about long-term success and the values of the communities that they were developing and because they were established on strong principles.

In contrast, some of the early urban development corporations did not embody those same aspirations. The development that took place was, in many cases, far less attractive as a consequence and far less well served with open spaces and amenities. It was often unsustainable or lacking in things such as local school places and good public transport connections. Some of those lessons from the early urban development corporations have informed the way in which development has taken place in the last 10 years or so. We have seen an emphasis on bringing forward community infrastructure early in the development process, so that communities are not left stranded and ill-provided for.

So far, I have seen nothing in the Bill that will ensure that new development under the Bill will be built to a high quality or high standard of sustainability. That is of significant concern. That is what the amendment is seeking to ensure both for urban development corporations and garden cities, which can and should play a significant role in building the homes we need. We must ensure that those homes are built to the highest standards for the long term, that they become part of the heritage of this country and of communities we can be proud of for the long term. We will do that only if we get right the values and the aspirations on which they are founded. That is why I am pleased to support the amendment.

Peter Dowd (Labour, Bootle)

I, too, support the amendment. It is partly because of my experience of being raised in an urban area where, post-war, many houses, and communities, were knocked down. Those communities were not fantastic all the time, but at their heart they had a community spirit. There was a genuine attempt in the post-war environment to expand and continue with that spirit, which was often difficult to do. Part of that was to ensure that when people left the slums—there should be no beating about the bush, because that is what they were; it was slum clearance—they went to an environment where houses were designed as best they could be and for the best reasons. However, there is a danger in the current proposals that there is a push, a push and a push for growth. Although there is nothing wrong with that, the quality of the housing that arises from that push can get lost in the race. This is an attempt to lay out a protocol for building.

In Merseyside, the village of Port Sunlight, which many people may have been to, was built by Lord Lever. It is a perfect example of a garden city that, to this day, looks virtually no different from the way it did 100 years ago. It is a fantastic place. Many other places in Liverpool have smaller versions of that, such as Norris Green, which won awards in the 1920s and 1930s for the design of its buildings. There is nothing to stop us supporting this proposal and to reify—to put into clear, unambiguous terms—what we expect from some of the garden city developments.

Earlier, when I referred to the Prime Minister, I was not trying to be facetious. The whole question about wellbeing and the health of people has to be put within the project.

There is also the issue of sustainable economic development, which is also in the national policy framework. That is laudable, but there sometimes has to be a reasonable break at times—not an absolute stop—in the planning process to ensure that in five, 10, 15, 20, 30 or 40 years’ time we do not regret that we did not intervene, especially given the lessons we learned in the post-war period.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

Once again, my hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. We often forget that we are talking about planning places that we hope will exist for generations to come. We want to be proud of the quality of the new developments and it behoves all of us, including the Minister, to ensure that garden city principles underpin the new developments.

Peter Dowd (Labour, Bootle)

I fully recognise those aims. Not far from where I live, the Criddle’s Estate was developed by a well-known socialist in our neck of the woods. It remains a beacon to the way developments can occur, if you get things right. The houses are solid, well sought after and an integral part of the community. We owe it to our children and grandchildren to make sure that, when we build garden cities, or developments that are not garden cities, we set out the principle clearly for everyone to see.

The amendment is perfectly reasonable. It sets out a framework for future development and I hope the Minister, even if he does not agree with it completely, understands and accepts the principle on which it is based.

Brandon Lewis (Conservative, Great Yarmouth)

I wholeheartedly agree that, where statutory delivery vehicles such as urban development corporations or new town development corporations are created, high-quality, sustainable place making should be absolutely at the heart of what they do. As we are having a clause stand part debate, let me pick up on the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough, who made a very good point about the inflammatory nature of some of the remarks of the TCPA. They were not only inflammatory, but ill-advised, and they discredited that organisation. I do not intend to give it the credibility of commenting on the remarks any further.

The hon. Member for City of Durham and I worked together in the previous Parliament, cross party, to get the urban development corporations set up. I thanked her colleagues at the time—the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) and the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds)—for their work in taking that forward and for showing how we can work together. We all want Ebbsfleet to develop appropriately. The establishment of the Ebbsfleet development corporation highlighted that the process itself needed updating, especially in the light of the more familiar practice of consultation. At the time, I said to our friends in the other place that we would come forward with this legislation as soon as we could to rectify the situation. That is where we are coming from.

In a more general sense in response to some of the comments we have heard this afternoon, while agreeing with the ethos of wanting high-quality development and communities to be delivered, we can see the difference between where the Opposition and the Government stand. For example, because of the way in which the proposal is drafted, it could slow down development in and of itself, as well as not providing good quality outcomes. That is because it so focused on a process of having to tick the boxes for A, B, C, D, E, F, G and H in order to qualify. We will find developers ticking those boxes rather than looking at what the right outcome is and working with the local community. I have some understanding of and sympathy with Opposition Members, who are very determined to ensure that they are planning well for people. The difference between us is that I believe that planning should be done by local people for local people and that it should not be done to them. We have to be very clear that we trust local people. I will comment on that in a moment.

Gareth Thomas (Labour/Co-operative, Harrow West)

I gently suggest that the Minister is stripping away the opportunities for local communities to influence the planning process.

Brandon Lewis (Conservative, Great Yarmouth)

I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads the national planning policy framework. It is only 50 pages long, and I am sure that it will entertain him this evening. I suggest that he looks at how local plans work, how neighbourhood plans work, and at consultation more generally. Even the corporations will come from local areas. On garden cities, towns and settlements and new settlements more generally, I am very keen, as are the Government, to work with various developers, but they will come from the area. There will not be the top-down, failed approach of the past.

Sustainable development in itself is hardwired into the planning system. It is absolutely central to the national planning policy framework, and rightly so. The framework provides a clear view of what sustainable development means in practice. It is explicit that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to achieving sustainable development, and that three pillars are key: the environment, society and the economy. They are mutually dependent and cannot and should not be pursued in isolation. We do not need a separate, statutory, tick-box requirement around sustainable development that applies only in a case where an urban development corporation or new town development corporation has been created. It would be quite unhelpful and distorting to have a separate definition of sustainable development outlined that applies only to them.

Nor do I think that we should limit local flexibility. Where local areas decide that an urban development corporation or new town development corporation is the best way to deliver regeneration or, indeed, a new town or settlement, rather than ticking their way through that long list of objectives, they should have the freedom to create strong, sustainable communities in a way that best reflects their local circumstances. It is they who best know their local needs, not us sitting here in Whitehall.

Great place making in and of itself is secured not through detailed central prescription, but through good, strong, clear and transparent local leadership. That applies whether or not the development is led by an urban development corporation, such as in Ebbsfleet. A master plan has been worked through for Ebbsfleet that makes it very clear that the ambition is to see the development of garden city principles. I saw that just yesterday when I went to announce the new Didcot garden town development, which is looking for innovation as well as good-quality development.

We see that where settlements are being developed in areas right around our country, from Northamptonshire right the way through to the south-west and Hampshire. Indeed, we only have to look at the well-known example of north-west Bicester, where 6,000-odd high-quality homes are being developed to zero-carbon standards. That is being done without central prescription, highlighting that local areas can be trusted to do the right thing and get the right quality for their local community. The local authority itself or the local development corporation when it is set up can deliver that, and should be empowered to do so without those strictures being put on them by central Government. I hope that that provides the hon. Lady with sufficient confidence to withdraw her amendment.

Helen Hayes (Labour, Dulwich and West Norwood)

Will the Minister clarify whether the homes in Bicester that are being delivered to the zero-carbon homes standard were consented to and the process of their delivery begun prior to the abolition of the zero-carbon homes standard?

Brandon Lewis (Conservative, Great Yarmouth)

There has not been a zero-carbon homes standard, and we have decided not to go forward with it. They are continuing it in Bicester anyway, and are in fact going to some quite interesting lengths. I say to the hon. Lady that, when I last visited Bicester, I was shown a really ambitious programme to develop a really sustainable community. In one area, the homes that are being built are provided with electric chargers for the cars, and the developer working with the local authority has negotiated with local car dealers to lend the new home buyers an electric car for a couple of weeks to show them how practical they are and how well they work in order to encourage electric cars. That is locally decided, not working to a tick-box from central Government. That is why it is right that local areas are empowered to do those things. More importantly, we should trust local people to do what is right for them. Time and again when we trust local people, they prove that they get it right. I am happy to continue supporting that, so I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

The Minister’s response is entirely what I expected, unfortunately. The amendment seeks to provide a set of principles that can be attached to urban development corporations. Those principles are not prescriptive. Indeed, if an urban development corporation is not contributing to an area’s sustainable economic development, is not contributing to the vibrant cultural and artistic development of a community, is not protecting and enhancing the natural and historical environment, is not contributing to mitigation and adaptation to climate change, is not promoting high-quality and inclusive design, is not ensuring that decision making is open, transparent, participative and accountable, and is not ensuring that assets are managed in a community’s long-term interest, what exactly is it doing? Those are all things that we would expect to see from any new development. I am very disappointed with the Minister’s response and, on that basis, I will press amendment 236 to a vote.

Clause 111 - Right to enter and survey land

Marcus Jones (Conservative, Nuneaton)

I beg to move amendment 246, in clause 11, page 52, line 32, after “survey” insert “or value”.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 247 to 256.

Marcus Jones (Conservative, Nuneaton)

It is a pleasure to serve again under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. Before I get into the detail of the amendments, it may be helpful if I provide a little background on the measure to which they relate: the right to enter and survey land. Any acquiring authority may need to enter land to survey it before deciding whether to proceed with a compulsory purchase order. For example, an acquiring authority may need to find out whether there are any underground structures or contamination that may hamper a proposed scheme. Currently, most, but not all, acquiring authorities have that power of entry, but there is no logical reason for that difference in powers.

Clauses 111 to 117 therefore introduce a new general power of entry, which will be available for all acquiring authorities to use prior to acquiring land. As well as ensuring that all acquiring authorities have the powers that they need, the measure will benefit those whose land is affected by ensuring a clear and consistent approach to entering land in such circumstances.

Government amendments 246, 248 and 249 to 256 ensure that the right of entry in clause 111 may be exercised to value land as well as survey it. A number of the existing powers of entry cover that purpose, so it seems sensible to include it in the new general power. Government amendment 247 also amends clause 111 to ensure that the right of entry can be exercised where land is being acquired by agreement as well as by compulsion. At the proposal stage, the acquiring authority might not know whether it will be able to acquire the land by agreement or whether it will have to exercise its compulsory acquisition powers. For the avoidance of doubt, therefore, we are making it clear that the power can be used in either case.

Gareth Thomas (Labour/Co-operative, Harrow West)

I am minded to support the Government amendments, particularly as it is the hon. Gentleman moving them rather than the Minister for Housing and Planning, but will he set out why he thinks they are needed? Compulsory purchase powers have existed for a long time, and I am not aware of a huge problem in terms of access in order to survey land. Why is it a problem now?

Marcus Jones (Conservative, Nuneaton)

I do not know what my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning has done to upset the hon. Gentleman. The reason we are introducing the provisions is to put all authorities on a level playing field when undertaking or exercising the right to compulsory purchase. At the moment, the rights that we are discussing can be exercised by local authorities, the Homes and Communities Agency and urban development corporations, but there are organisations, such as NHS trusts and Natural England, and certain Ministers within the Government, who do not have the same powers, so we have sought to extend them to ensure that the situation is consistent.

Peter Dowd (Labour, Bootle)

At the moment, to the best of my knowledge, those authorities tend to be, as the Minister has identified, effectively public authorities, such as Ministers, the NHS and so on. Can we have clarity as to whether the powers will extend that authority status to private authorities?

Marcus Jones (Conservative, Nuneaton)

There are circumstances in which that could be the case, but it would generally be where a local authority or another public body exercises its compulsory purchase powers before using a private organisation, for example, as a delivery vehicle for the proposed scheme. A town centre scheme is probably a good example. On that basis, I believe that I have answered the Opposition’s questions so far, and I commend the amendment to the Committee.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

I beg to move amendment 281, in clause 111, page 52, line 37, at end insert—

“(c) may do so when an existing planning permission has expired”.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 282, in clause 111, page 52, line 37, at end insert—

“(d) may do so when development has failed to commence”.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

Before I speak to amendment 281, I think it is worth putting on the record that, once again, we are very pleased that the Government have looked in detail at the recommendations of the Lyons review and have brought forward more of the measures that were recommended in that excellent document, although we think there could be a bit of tweaking to improve matters further—that is the premise of amendments 281, 282 and 283. These are designed to ensure that the process of compulsory purchase orders is expedited and prioritises the ability for land to be used in order to build more homes, which both sides of the Committee have agreed we very much want.

In its evidence to the Committee, Milton Keynes Council called for the proposed reforms to go further and to include a default position that all decisions on confirmation of a compulsory purchase order are delegated to the acquiring authority; a more fundamental consolidation and streamlining of the legislative provisions for compulsory purchase; and stronger compulsory purchase powers where planning permissions have expired and development has not commenced. Hon. Members who have looked at the Lyons review in detail will know that we spent a great deal of time looking at what happens when planning approval has expired, when there does not seem to be any building on the site or when building on the site has stalled for no obvious reason, and when the council does not appear to be able to do very much to move that development on. Milton Keynes and other councils have argued for stronger powers where planning permissions have expired and, in particular, where development has not commenced and does not look as if it will commence in the near future.

They have also asked for stronger compulsory purchase powers to tackle empty homes. What I have done—I hope it is in order, Mr Gray—is to put the three amendments together and I will speak on that basis. We also want stronger powers for councils to direct the use of publicly owned land. As I said, Milton Keynes Council is not alone in calling for the legislation to be strengthened. The Local Government Association has also been a leading voice in calling for the process to be streamlined. It has given a lot of evidence to the Committee suggesting that and I draw the attention of Members to its briefings on the subject. They give a lot of background detail about why the LGA wants the sorts of measures outlined in the three amendments to be adopted by the Government so as to speed up the process of compulsory purchase orders.

Amendments 281 and 282 would ensure that compulsory purchase orders are made faster and fairer by inserting specific instances that could provide that ease. The Government said in the October consultation that they want to streamline the process and make it more transparent. We believe that the amendments provide for that. They would strengthen compulsory purchase powers where planning permission has expired. That would be used as a measure of last resort, and with appropriate safeguards, to allow councils to tackle sites that have had planning permission for a long time but that have not been built out.

The entire notion of compulsory purchase orders is to make sure that land that is not being used can be put to use to benefit the community. Where planning permission is granted and subsequently expires without development having begun, why is there not the ability to take stronger action to ensure that development takes place on the site? It might be worth the Minister considering the suggestion in the Lyons review that land with planning permission that has not been built out within five years should be put up for auction if a new application for planning permission does not seem to be forthcoming. How does the local authority get access to that land in order to ensure that development takes place? That is an extremely important issue in trying to get more land into the system and in trying to ensure that the land that is already in the system, and that has been identified and given planning permission for housing, is brought forward.

If we want to overcome the housing crisis through a more efficient and effective planning process, one way for that to happen is to ensure that, in the circumstances I have outlined, compulsory purchase orders can not only be made but be made fairly easily. We have part 7 of the Bill because there is agreement on both sides of the Committee that the process needs to be streamlined. The view of councils and local authorities, which are often at the hard end of needing to get land developed, is that the proposals need to go a bit further.

Similarly, amendment 283 would ensure that compulsory purchase orders are able to support local authorities to bring empty homes back into use—the amendment would enable local authorities to refurbish such properties and bring them back into a habitable state. To put that in context, Government tables show that, in October 2014, there were 610,000 vacant homes in England alone, which is a very high number. A small number of those homes, only 25,000 or so, were owned by the local authority. If we compare the number of homes that local authorities can do something about at the moment—around 20,000 or 25,000—with the massive 610,000 vacant properties that are out there, it clearly shows that something needs to happen to bring those homes into use, and to bring them into use more quickly.

In its response to the consultation on improving the compulsory purchase process, the LGA pointed out that there is a lot to be gained from supporting councils to bring empty homes back into use:

“Local authorities could…recoup their investment through rental income over the set time period, and even acquire nomination rights, returning the properties back to their owners at the end of the lease.”

Moreover, there is something to be gained within the wider community by supporting councils to address empty homes. Long-term empty homes tend to have a negative impact on surrounding homes and areas. Although addressing empty homes will not provide a solution to the need for new homes, it is part of the solution. Both sides of the Committee agree that we need a multi-tenure approach and that we have to get more homes into the system through a range of measures. It is therefore incumbent on all of us that we do not forget how empty homes could provide part of the solution. We recognise that empty homes are only part of the solution, but they are an important part of making the best use of the stock that already exists.

It is also important to allow, and perhaps enable, councils to show that they are actively engaged in finding practical solutions to housing problems in their area. I am sure we have all had local people say to us, “With so many families on the housing waiting list and so many homeless families, why aren’t those houses that are lying empty brought back into use?” Of course, the reality, as we know, is that it is often very difficult for local authorities to find out who owns a property or what state the ownership is in. They have to go down a very lengthy and costly compulsory purchase order route that is often challenged at later stages in the legal process.

Therefore, it is vital that this particular amendment is considered very seriously by the Minister, given the strong representations that have been made by LGA members and by other councils. Indeed, the LGA has told us that it has long called for councils to have stronger CPOs to tackle empty homes, and that councils should be able to acquire time-limited leaseholds. That is interesting, because it is the sort of short-circuiting of compulsory purchase that in effect means councils would have compulsory purchase powers for a given period of time.

The LGA is asking the Government to consider that option. It would enable councils to undertake refurbishment work to properties, to bring them back to a habitable state. However, as the LGA says, councils could also recoup their investment through rental income.

The LGA is also asking for a removal of the requirement for councils to pay compensation on long-term empty properties, which is currently 7.5% of the property’s value and up to £75,000 per home. The LGA argues that if councils have to do that, even where a home has apparently been abandoned or left unmanaged, that is essentially putting a prohibitive cost on to the local authority, so it is likely that that home will remain empty rather than being brought back into habitable use.

That is an extremely interesting suggestion from the LGA and it would be useful to learn from the Minister, when he responds, whether the Government, as part of the consultation process on these particular proposals, have sat down with the LGA and its leaders to work out how the system could be made to work much better, not only for central Government but for local government.

I know that the LGA has argued strongly to the Government that it wants a re-evaluation and reform of the whole process and that is why it is disappointed that there are not better, clearer and more explicit ways to facilitate that in the Bill. Because of that, and because of the very strong recommendations that councils and the LGA have made to members of this Committee, I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

Peter Dowd (Labour, Bootle)

I think that what I am about to say is a little counter-intuitive, but I suspect that it is based on the principle of more haste, less speed, in relation to this matter. May I say for the record that I am a Shostakovich man and not a Duran Duran man?

This clause raises more questions than it answers, and that is more about what is in it than what is not in it. Many organisations are perplexed at the lost opportunity in relation to CPOs. I think that many rural communities will be concerned, and I will come on to that point later.

One organisation that has concerns is the Country Land and Business Association. It wrote a document in 2012—it may have been updated, but I do not think it has been—called Fair Play. The association, which comprises 34,000 members, owns and manages half the rural land in England and Wales; there are 250 different types of businesses involved with it and they have concerns about CPOs and the process in general. They are right, because they tend to be on the receiving end of CPOs, whether from the utilities, local authorities or public bodies in the form of schools or hospitals and so on. Of course, they also have concerns about private development on their land, and compulsory purchase arising from that.

Developments in and legislation on compulsory purchase have been incredibly piecemeal over the past century and that is the context in which this debate is set. That has happened not just under Conservative Governments or Labour Governments, but under every Government. Whether the major change in development is progressive or not—I will not get into that argument—and whether it is centralising or localising, it is important for the Minister to consider some of those issues.

The CLA talked about a

“significant impact on people, their lives and their aspirations”

and I want to touch on rural areas. HS2 is a particular concern for them. It is an example where CPOs are seen as a blunt, aggressive and overbearing instrument of “state oppression”.

In light of what is a significant—groundbreaking, if the Committee will excuse the pun on house building—change to the law, there are issues of duty of care, which are addressed to some extent in the amendments. If the provisions are the way forward for planning and a longer- term economic plan, whether that plan is A, B or C, and are setting the scene for planning for growth, they must also take into account the economic impact on those who are directly and indirectly affected by CPOs.

The issues that arise include asking, what about a statutory code of practice on CPOs? What about an independent person to oversee the process? That is the counter-intuitive bit. It seems that that would take longer than the current arrangement, but many organisations take the view that such a process, with the elements of independence and a code of practice, would speed the process up. That is something that should be considered carefully because we all accept that we must get on with house building.

Blight is another issue. A classic example that has affected many Members is HS2. Statutory blight kicks in only once a scheme has been confirmed and safeguarded in the planning process. Something needs to be done about that. If the Government are taking a central role in major infrastructure projects, they should ensure that central protection is in place for small businesses, farmers, rural enterprises and the like. It is crucial that if the dead hand of Whitehall is to be involved in the process—vicariously, I accept, via the Minister to someone else—there should be protections.

I wanted to touch on a historical issue, the so-called Crichel Down affair, which I suspect many Conservative Members are well aware of. I do not raise it to cause any concern to the Minister: Sir Thomas Dugdale had to resign over the matter, which involved the sale of agricultural land to the military, and then back for agricultural use, and caused trauma to the people involved. I raise it because the Crichel Down guidelines arising from it must be considered carefully. They are, effectively, voluntary, and we need to tighten them up and possibly put them on a statutory basis, instead of extending a century’s piecemeal creep of CPOs. The Minister might want to consider that, otherwise it is a lost opportunity to protect, psychologically and financially, people who are affected by significantly different proposals in the planning process. It is important that that point is picked up.

Another issue we must pick up on is the reconsideration of lost payments. Forcing a sale—some call it legal sequestration; call it what you will—demands a transparent process that exudes fairness. A possible payment over and over the value of land may be important where uncompensated losses are concerned. The key is that that arguably saves time, with all the haggling that goes on in relation to land values, so it is something that could be considered. Other issues to consider include a tight advance payment process, timing notices, the amount of land required, interest on payments, and the water industry serving notice to enter land without prior negotiation, which rubs people up the wrong way.

The Government have an opportunity to give careful consideration to the issues related to CPO, and to be slightly bolder in taking the matter forward. That would be to the benefit of everyone, and it would be in the long-tried British tradition of being fair and reasonable in the process. In that regard, we need protections that assure landowners—small or large—that the Government only use land that they need, rather than land that they want.

The amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham helpfully clarify the important need for action in relation to CPOs, where the empty home blights not just the homeowner but the whole area. When we compensate, we should expect those who own the property to co-operate with the compulsory purchase as soon as is practically possible.

Finally, the Country Land and Business Association gives some heart-rending examples of people affected by CPOs that are not carried out right, fairly and reasonably:

“A Welsh sheep farmer, who had a substantial proportion of his holding acquired, had to rent additional land on which to graze his stock. His agent submitted and agreed the farmer’s claim with the district valuer and vigorously chased the acquirer for payment. Four years of non-payment followed with spurious excuses such as ‘the girl who writes the cheques is on holiday’. The acquirer also claimed to have lost the paperwork submitted by the claimant. The saga ended tragically when the bank foreclosed on him and he took his own life.”

The responsibility of the Committee is to ensure that fairness and reasonabless—the British way—prevails, especially when people’s property is being taken away. We also need to do that as expeditiously as possible, and we have the opportunity to do so. I ask the Minister to give careful consideration to my points.

Mr Thomas rose—

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

Order. Before I call the next speaker, it is perhaps worth pointing out that I have been fairly relaxed about allowing people to cover the whole subject of compulsory purchase and I therefore suggest that we do not have stand part debate later.

Gareth Thomas (Labour/Co-operative, Harrow West)

I am grateful to you, Mr Gray, for allowing me to catch your eye.

In April 2015 a series of Conservative MPs came to the constituency of Harrow West to support unsuccessfully their candidate. As they were leaving, some of them may well have paused for a cup of coffee at Harrow-on-the-Hill station—a very nice coffee shop there is there. Just around the corner, however, stands the former post office site, lying empty, as it has done for some 10 years. Why do I raise that? It is partly to begin to make clear the reason for my support for amendments 282 and 283. Both my hon. Friends have explained the need to accelerate situations in which a planning application or development has stalled and local authorities or developers might want access to information about the value of a site, what is on it and how it might be developed in future.

In the context of the former Harrow post office site, there is an additional complication. It is located next to the Metropolitan railway line. Indeed, it is very close to Harrow-on-the-Hill station, which suffers from the lack of a lift, making access extremely difficult. There has long been talk of a new access point through the former Harrow post office site to the Harrow-on-the-Hill station platforms. With the benefit of amendment 282, it might be easier for local planning officers, developers and even Transport for London surveyors to access the former post office site to examine what potential it might have for new access and a new position for the main parts of Harrow-on-the-Hill station.

Without the addition of this helpful amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham, I worry that the people of Harrow West—and indeed the people of Harrow East—who use Harrow-on-the-Hill station might continue to suffer for a long time from the lack of access facilities, which means that they must use the stairs. For someone disabled, that usually means that Harrow-on-the-Hill station is not accessible, and for a new dad like me, it means that one must go to the gym to develop the muscles to carry one’s child’s pram up and down the stairs.

If we had access, or had confidence that developers could have access, to the former Harrow post office to explore the potential for a new bridge over the Metropolitan line so that people would not have to use the stairs, it might give my constituents confidence that their long-held aspiration of a more accessible crucial central station at Harrow-on-the-Hill might be within sight. I urge the Minister to continue in the reasonable nature that he has demonstrated up to now, and perhaps to have the courage to defy his civil servants and support amendment 282.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Has he not just given a brilliant example of what we are discussing? Having better compulsory purchase powers would enable local authorities to unlock a necessary development for his constituents of the sort that we have all been talking about.

Gareth Thomas (Labour/Co-operative, Harrow West)

That is generous of my hon. Friend. It is a particular concern of my constituents, given the huge cuts to Transport for London grant, which might mean that access programmes that exist for other stations are cut, putting even further away the prospect of better access at Harrow-on-the-Hill station. If there were a way to secure some planning gain from the development at the Harrow post office site that might be invested in better access and it might be another route to achieving the objective that my constituents have had for a long time now, under both Mayors of London, which is to make Harrow-on-the-Hill a fully accessible station. I hope that the Minister will be particularly attracted to amendment 282. In that spirit, I support my hon. Friend’s amendment.

Marcus Jones (Conservative, Nuneaton)

In replying to the hon. Member for City of Durham and Opposition Members, it may be helpful if I start by clarifying the purpose of clause 111. It does not confer any compulsory purchase powers on acquiring authorities; it merely allows acquiring authorities to enter land for survey or valuation purposes in connection with a proposal to acquire land. The intention behind the hon. Lady’s amendments therefore could not be delivered through the clause. In any case, the amendments are unnecessary. Local authorities already have the powers to acquire land by compulsion in the circumstances that the hon. Lady mentioned, provided there is a compelling case in the public interest and they have a deliverable scheme.

Also, to set the record straight, there are not currently 600,000 long-term empty properties. If the hon. Lady checks back and looks at the figures, 600,000 was the number of long-term empty properties under the last Labour Government. Under the guidance of my party in coalition and now in Government on our own, we have the lowest level of long-term vacant properties on record: 206,000. There is still significantly more to do, but we have put significant provisions in place to reduce the number of vacant properties, and the figures show that those provisions are working.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

The figures—I did not actually say that they related to long-term vacant properties; I simply said they were empty—came from the Minister’s own Department in October 2014. The figures given by the Department state that there are 610,123 vacant homes. I am clear that that is the figure I was given.

Marcus Jones (Conservative, Nuneaton)

I hear what the hon. Lady says, but I think she is putting up a false argument, because homes that are vacant in the short term are often let. That is obvious on the basis that the number of long-term vacant homes is a significantly lower number than the number of short-term vacant properties.

On the LGA, I can reassure the hon. Lady that Ministers meet it to discuss such matters regularly. On empty dwellings, local authorities can apply for empty dwelling management orders under the powers of the Housing Act 2004. That would be a far better vehicle than the amendment that she has tabled. In relation to the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Bootle about the process and clarity, in October we published updated guidance on the compulsory purchase process in a new format that has new user-friendly language to try and help people understand a very complex area of law.

Given the assurances that I have given to the hon. Lady, and on the basis that the intention of her amendment would not be achieved through the amendment, perhaps she will consider withdrawing it.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

I know that under clause 111 as drafted it would not be possible for acquiring authorities to have access to compulsory purchase orders, but that was why we tabled the amendment. If the amendment were agreed to, the clause would allow that, and that would speed up the process of dealing with empty properties. I just say to the Minister that if the system and the Bill were okay, and if local authorities were to be enabled to do all that they want to bring forward development in their area, with sufficient land available for that, and to tackle the scourge of empty properties, they would not have asked us all to think about amending the Bill. Will he have another look at the issue? Local authorities are saying, “We cannot do what we want to do for our areas through the Bill as it stands.” I ask, in as nice a way as possible, that he thinks about the matter again, and especially what can be done to bring empty properties back into use as quickly as possible. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 112 - Warrant authorising use of force to enter and survey land

Gareth Thomas (Labour/Co-operative, Harrow West)

I am grateful to have caught your eye, Mr Gray. I rise in the context of one or two cases in which Hansard reports of proceedings have been used to help a judge to understand the motives behind measures, thus allowing them to make a judgment on a case before them. I also wish to ask the Minister a number of questions about this clause. When he introduced clauses 111 to 117, he described how several parts of government do not have the same opportunities as others to access, enter and survey land. If I remember his response to my intervention correctly, he referenced NHS trusts in particular, as well as one or two Departments. I wonder whether the situation is the same specifically with regard to clause 112, because it seems a little odd to include in the Bill a clause that authorises the use of force to enter and survey land. Will he set out examples of when NHS trusts or Departments have wanted or felt that they needed to use force, but had to back off because there is no provision in law to allow that, meaning that they either had not to go down the compulsory purchase order route, or had to find some other way of getting the information that they needed?

It would also be helpful if the Minister gave some examples of what is meant by “to use force”. Are we talking about guns or wire cutters? It would be helpful if he could give examples of local authorities that have said to him, “We need the ability to use force to enter and survey land because otherwise we won’t be able to go ahead with a whole series of compulsory purchase orders that have been set out.”

I worry that subsection (2) involves, once again, the word “reasonably” being written into law. That word that has all sorts of connotations for different people. The clause might create a lot of case law, so this is an opportunity for the Minister to set out his definition of “reasonably necessary” and therefore to limit the possibility of misunderstandings in court when a warrant is being challenged by a potential developer. I ask my questions in the spirit of gentle inquiry and look forward to the Minister’s reply.

Marcus Jones (Conservative, Nuneaton)

We would expect most acquiring authorities exercising their compulsory purchase rights to reach agreement with owners and occupiers about entry to their land. Warrants are only for those cases when entry is refused or is likely to be refused. It is impossible to predict how many warrants will be sought, as that will depend on the number of compulsory purchase proposals that come forward, the number of affected owners and occupiers, and their reaction to each particular proposal. Just to give the hon. Gentleman some reassurance, however, clause 112 makes it absolutely clear that while the warrant authorises the use of force, a justice of the peace, when deciding whether to issue a warrant, must be satisfied that the use of force is reasonable in the particular case, and the force that may be authorised is limited to what is reasonably necessary. In addition, all evidence in proceedings must be given under oath and the warrant must specify the number of times that entry will be allowed.

Gareth Thomas (Labour/Co-operative, Harrow West)

The Minister has helpfully detailed the context in which a warrant might be issued and specified that he expects that the vast majority of efforts to enter and survey land will not require a warrant in the first place. However, to come back to the nub of my earlier comments, why is the power necessary? Have the Minister’s civil servants had to field a series of requests from local authorities or developers for these powers?

Marcus Jones (Conservative, Nuneaton)

I have set out that the warrants will be used only when the landowner has an adverse reaction to a request to enter and survey or value land. It is clear that many acquiring authorities and landowners will come to arrangements themselves, but the case the hon. Gentleman mentioned of his own railway station is a prime example of when a scheme was being put forward but the landowner completely refused to allow the acquiring authority the right to come on to the land to survey and value it. I expect that he would want some sort of mechanism whereby that acquiring authority would be able to enter the land.

Gareth Thomas (Labour/Co-operative, Harrow West)

Does the Minister have fracking in mind? He shakes his head and looks pained—I recognise that that is a sensitive subject for Conservative Members—but does he envisage a warrant requiring the use of force being needed if protesters had barricaded themselves in, or if the person who owned the land did not want someone who had been given fracking consent to survey what may or may not be underneath the ground?

Marcus Jones (Conservative, Nuneaton)

The hon. Gentleman has come up with many conspiracy theories during our scrutiny of the Bill and I suspect that this may well be another one. I have set out the reasoning behind clause 112 in detail and hope that hon. Members will agree to it.

Clause 114 - Enhanced authorisation procedures etc. for certain surveys

Marcus Jones (Conservative, Nuneaton)

I beg to move amendment 257, in clause 114, page 54, line 40, at end insert—

“(5) See section 169(4) of the Water Industry Act 1991 and section 171(4) of the Water Resources Act 1991 for additional procedures in relation to the exercise of the power in section 111 on behalf of a water undertaker, the Environment Agency or the Natural Resources Body for Wales.”

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government new clause 18—Amendments to do with section 111 to 117.

Government new schedule 3—Right to enter and survey land: consequential amendments.

Marcus Jones (Conservative, Nuneaton)

Amendment 257, new clause 18 and new schedule 3 clarify how the new right of entry will interact with a number of existing powers of entry. As I have explained, the intention is that all acquiring authorities should, when possible, use the new general power of entry, so when the new general power covers all the purposes of an existing power of entry, that existing power will be repealed in its entirety. If the scope of the existing power is wider than that of the new general power, we will amend the existing power so that it no longer applies to the specific purposes for which the general power can be used.

Amendment 257 signposts additional procedures that relevant acquiring authorities must follow when exercising the right of entry under clause 111. Those additional procedures, as set out in the Water Industry Act 1991 and the Water Resources Act 1991, require water undertakers, the Environment Agency and the Natural Resources Wales to seek the Secretary of State’s written authorisation before exercising the right to enter in certain circumstances. The amendment simply replicates an important safeguard in the existing power of entry.

New clause 18 introduces new schedule 3, which sets out the changes to each of the existing powers of entry. I will highlight one particular point. The existing powers of entry repealed by paragraphs 8, 9, 19, 20 and 27 of new schedule 3 allow entry in connection with any claim for compensation in respect of an acquisition. The new general power of entry in clause 111 does not cover that purpose. However, as such claims arise after a compulsory purchase order has been confirmed, paragraph 6 of new schedule 3 clarifies that acquiring authorities will be able to rely on the power of entry under section 11(3) of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 for that purpose.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

Before we move on, I would like to comment on a small matter of protocol. On several occasions today, members of staff have come into the Strangers Gallery and handed documents and other things to members of the Committee. That is not in order—you may not do that. If you want to get something from members of staff, go outside into the corridor and do it there, if that is agreeable.

Clause 117 - Right to enter and survey Crown land

Gareth Thomas (Labour/Co-operative, Harrow West)

In the spirit of my contribution on clause 112, I want to ask some questions about clause 117. Why do we require a clause on the right to enter and survey Crown land? I struggle to understand why a warrant authorising the use of force might be necessary to enter and survey Crown land, so I would welcome the Minister’s setting out an example of why that might be necessary.

I also struggle to understand why somebody who is, presumably, employed by the Queen might be at risk of committing an offence under clause 116 in relation to entering and surveying Crown land. Why on earth do we need to include Crown land under the Bill? One assumes that, as a general rule, Her Majesty and those who exercise control of her lands would work with Government Departments and developers to allow them to enter and survey land. Even if those employed by Her Majesty did not co-operate, I struggle to understand why we would want to take action against staff employed to look after Crown land, or why the Minister thinks that a warrant authorising the use of force is necessary. Will the Minister set out in particular whether this measure covers Crown Estate land? Has he had any consultations with the Crown Estate itself about how clauses 111 to 116 apply to Crown Estate land under the terms of clause 117?

Marcus Jones (Conservative, Nuneaton)

I will respond quickly to the hon. Gentleman’s questions. Clause 117 explains that the new power of entry will be available in relation to Crown land—any land in which there is a Crown or a duchy interest, for example—but the permission of the appropriate Crown authority must be obtained first. That ensures that there is appropriate protection for Crown land. The measure is based on existing precedent. For instance, the power of entry set out in sections 53 and 54 of the Planning Act 2008 involves a similar provision in respect of Crown land.

Clause 119 - Confirmation by inspector

Marcus Jones (Conservative, Nuneaton)

I beg to move amendment 258, in clause 119, page 57, line 1, leave out from beginning to “is” in line 2 and insert—

“Where an inspector decides whether or not to confirm the whole or part of a compulsory purchase order, the inspector’s decision”.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

I beg to move amendment 280, in clause 119, page 57, line 24, at end insert—

“(d) submitted to the acquiring authority”.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

I will be happy to provide it.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

Thank you, Mr Gray. I wish to speak about amendment 280 and to make some wider comments about clause stand part, and I seek guidance as to whether I should do them both together.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

It might be simplest if the hon. Lady spoke about amendment 280 and made comments on clause stand part; we could then avoid having a separate debate later. Please range wider than the amendment would indicate.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

That is very helpful. Thank you very much indeed, Mr Gray.

Amendment 280 aims further to include the local authority in planning decisions and asks for local authorities to be engaged with the compulsory purchase order decisions. It would add a useful element to the Bill for two main reasons.

First, it would ensure that local authorities have a strong and active role in the CPO decision. As we have highlighted throughout the Committee process, and it has been backed up time and again by those giving evidence, local authorities often have a much better knowledge of and insight into the needs and realities of a local area than central Government or, in this particular instance, a planning inspector.

That is obviously also true when it comes to planning decisions and putting local people at the heart of the planning process. It is important that local councillors in particular are involved in compulsory purchase. They are often in a very good position to bring about a collaborative approach, rather than one that is simply top-down, and can play a pivotal role in explaining to a local community and to the owners of the land why compulsory purchase is a sensible decision. We feel that this role for local authorities and their councillors in mediating some of the disputes that can arise from CPO decisions has been overlooked, or perhaps it has not been exploited enough by Government and those seeking to bring about compulsory purchase. It could also be an important element in speeding the process up, because that mediation that can be brought about locally could help to highlight some of the difficulties that exist.

Again, this amendment has come forward very strongly from the LGA, which says that it wants to be actively engaged in the process; it thinks that it could have a positive impact on decisions. The LGA has said that the consultation that the Government carried out before introducing the Bill proposed enabling powers to allow the Secretary of State to delegate decisions for confirmation to an inspector in certain instances, which is exactly what we are discussing in relation to clause 119.

Although that is a step in the right direction and should speed up decision making to a degree, we think that the Government should be even more ambitious. That is why we think that the requirement for permission from the Secretary of State to proceed with a compulsory purchase order should be removed, or at least that consideration should be given to removing it in certain circumstances, particularly where safeguards are in place and it is clearly set out in legislation that local authorities could be given that decision. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister when he responds to these points why he thinks that we should not do more to strengthen the role that local authorities could play in bringing about CPOs swiftly and ensuring that all parties are on board with the decision.

I have a few wider comments, which I will keep extremely brief. Again, the LGA, on the back of this clause and other related clauses, has said that it thinks that there could be a

“more fundamental consolidation and streamlining of the legislative provisions for compulsory purchase”.

In particular, it points out:

“A number of different Acts and statutory instruments introduced over more than 150 years pertaining to compulsory purchase have resulted in antiquated legal terminology, inconsistences and uncertainties, all of which add to the costs of the CPO process and the scope for dispute.”

That is an extremely interesting point. Although the clause contains some of the streamlining that we all want to speed up the CPO process and make it easier to understand and more transparent, we are probably seeing the need for consolidating legislation that would make it easier for everyone.

The LGA makes another important point:

“Land valuation should be considered by the tribunal up front, in cases where a compulsory purchase order is in contest, not at the end of the process, creating greater certainty”

for all parties. I would be grateful, when the Minister is responding to both the amendment and clause stand part, if he said more about what we can do to help local authorities. I point out to him that we have an incredibly complicated 10-stage process in place at the moment. Anything that we can do to streamline it would be helpful. It is clear from the many representations made to the Committee that giving local authorities a greater role would help streamline the process hugely. More than that, it would show that the Government have faith in local authorities to do the best for their area. We understand fully the need for safeguards in certain circumstances, but we would like the Government to extend localism to having some faith that local authorities know what is best for their communities, and allowing them a direct role in the compulsory purchase process.

Marcus Jones (Conservative, Nuneaton)

I thank the hon. Lady for her explanation of amendment 280 relating to clause 119(3), which substitutes for section 2(2) of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 a new section 2(2) requiring a compulsory purchase order to be made by the acquiring authority and submitted to the confirming authority—the Secretary of State—for confirmation in accordance with part 2 of the 1981 Act. Amendment 280 would require the order to be submitted to the acquiring authority also. The amendment is unnecessary and inappropriate because the compulsory purchase order will have been made by the acquiring authority and submitted to the confirming authority. There is therefore no need or purpose for the order to be submitted back to the acquiring authority.

Section 2(2) of the 1981 Act is about the submission phase, not the decision phase. Part 2 of the 1981 Act concerns the decision phase. The compulsory purchase decision phase must comply with article 6 of the European convention on human rights, which means that the decision on an order needs to be made by an independent and impartial tribunal. The current process, whereby the confirming authority makes its decision, after the affected parties have had the opportunity to make objections and have them heard by an inspector, ensures a fair and impartial process that is article 6 compliant. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Lady will consider her proposal unnecessary and inappropriate. I invite her to withdraw the amendment.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

The LGA and the councils clearly feel strongly about the issue because they are asking for changes to be made. I hear what the Minister says about ensuring a degree of independent adjudication, and it would help if he could indicate whether he will keep talking to the LGA about how its concerns might be better addressed in the current system. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 120 - Time limits for notice to treat or general vesting declaration

Marcus Jones (Conservative, Nuneaton)

I beg to move amendment 259, in clause 120, page 57, line 36, leave out “made” and insert “executed”.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 260, 261 and 272 to 277.

Marcus Jones (Conservative, Nuneaton)

This series of amendments, starting in clause 120, all do the same thing. They change the terminology from “made” to “executed” in reference to a general vesting declaration. Although such a declaration is “made” when it has been “executed”, and hence the words mean the same, section 4 of the Compulsory Purchase (Vesting Declarations) Act 1981 uses “executed” and we think, therefore, that it will help all parties involved in compulsory purchase if we are consistent throughout.

Schedule 7 - Notice of general vesting declaration procedure

Clause 131 - Power to make and timing of advance payment

Clause 134 - Objection to division of land

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

The clause relates to objections relating to the division of land, and I have a question for the Minister. If an objection to the taking of only part of the land is served by a landowner, the project for which powers of compulsory purchase have been granted is likely to come to a halt until the landowner’s desire to have the entirety of the interest acquired has been resolved either by agreement or by the Lands Chamber. This can create a situation in which the landowner can hold the intended project to ransom on account of the likely delay to the project, given the delay in resolving the issue in the Lands Chamber, which can often amount to a year or a number of years if the issue is particularly complex. Does the Minister think the measures in the clause will help in that situation? Will they help to provide a remedy that speeds up resolution of problems that emerge when there is a division of land or land is split in some way? If the Minister thinks that it does, will he explain to the Committee how?

Marcus Jones (Conservative, Nuneaton)

It will probably help if I explain clause 134, which introduces schedules 9 and 10, which contain a dispute resolution procedure where material detriment has been alleged. This may arise when only a part of a claimant’s land is required by the acquiring authority. Schedule 9 applies when a notice to treat has been served and schedule 10 applies following the execution of a general vesting declaration. It may help the Committee if I briefly outline the concept of material detriment.

Some projects, such as roads, may require only part of someone’s land, and that will be the land included in the compulsory purchase order. The taking of land and the nature of the project will have differing effects depending on the nature of the remaining land. Material detriment arises where the claimant’s retained land would be less useful or less valuable to a significant degree. If the claimant thinks that taking part of the land will cause material detriment to a house, building or factory, including part of a garden or park belonging to the house, he or she can serve a counter-notice, which can then be referred to the upper tribunal for determination.

The procedure for claiming material detriment differs depending on whether an acquiring authority serves a notice to treat or executes a general vesting declaration. The intention in the Bill is to harmonise the two procedures as far as possible. That goes some way to simplifying the process by giving both parties a greater understanding of the process, and giving a better steer to the courts in relation to making sure that the procedure is harmonised for when both systems are used.

Paragraph 3 of schedule 9 inserts new schedule 2A into the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965. This sets out the procedure for serving a counter-notice requiring the purchase of land, not the notice to treat, and its subsequent determination. Among the procedural details are three important points. First, the acquiring authority is permitted to enter the land that it wants and to get on with its scheme where the counter-notice has been referred to the tribunal. That is set out in paragraph 11 of new schedule 2A, referred to in paragraph 5(b). Secondly, if the acquiring authority does that, there is no going back, as it will be compelled to take the remainder of the land if the tribunal finds in favour of the claimant. That is the effect of paragraph 21(1)(c) of the new schedule 2A, which allows the acquiring authority to withdraw its notice to treat only if it has not yet entered on and taken possession of the land. Thirdly, if the tribunal requires all or some more of the remaining land to be taken, the claimant will be compensated for any losses caused by the temporary severance of the land where the authority has already entered part of it. For example, if part of a claimant’s business premises is taken, he or she may incur trading losses over and above those that would have occurred had the land been taken in the first instance. That is provided for in paragraph 26(5) of new schedule 2A.

Among the consequential amendments in part 2 of schedule 9 is a new feature of the material detriment regime. Paragraph 9 inserts a new section 2A into the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 that allows acquiring authorities to disapply the material detriment provisions for land that is 9 metres or more below the surface. That provision will prevent spurious claims for material detriment from owners of land above tunnels where the works will have no discernible effect on the land. Provisions of that nature are common in hybrid Acts, such as the Crossrail Act 2008.

Schedule 10 provides a similar counter-notice procedure where material detriment is claimed following the execution of a general vesting declaration under the Compulsory Purchase (Vesting Declarations) Act 1981. I commend clause 134 to the Committee.

Schedule 9 - Objection to division of land following notice to treat

Schedule 10 - Objection to division of land following vesting declaration

Clause 137 - Power to override easements and other rights

Marcus Jones (Conservative, Nuneaton)

I beg to move amendment 262, in clause 137, page 66, line 39, after “authority” insert “, or

(ii) been appropriated by a local authority for planning purposes as defined by section 246(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990”.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 263 to 271.

Marcus Jones (Conservative, Nuneaton)

This group of amendments contains mainly transitional provisions and drafting improvements. With your permission, Mr Gray, before I explain what they all do I will set out the purpose of clauses 137 to 139 to put them into context.

Regeneration and redevelopment projects will, almost by definition, take place on previously developed land. To ensure that there are no impediments to the proposed regeneration, it may be necessary to deal with restrictive covenants and easements that affect the land acquired. The Law Commission has found that there are easements over at least 65% of registered freehold titles. Those third-party interests are typically rights to allow the underground services—for example, water, gas, electricity and telecommunications—of one property to pass beneath the land of neighbouring properties. There are also rights of light, rights of way and covenants restricting development to certain uses or density.

The statutory power to override such easements and covenants for both the construction and use of development is currently restricted to local planning authorities and regeneration agencies such as the Homes and Communities Agency and urban development corporations. New town development corporations and housing action trusts also have that power, but there are none in existence at present. One important aspect of the power is that it devolves to subsequent purchasers of the land without the local authority or agency having to do the development itself. It is therefore an important feature of town centre redevelopment schemes where local planning authorities acquire land and sell it on to their developer partner.

Not all development schemes are undertaken on land held for planning purposes or acquired by regeneration agencies. The Government have therefore decided to extend the power to override the easements and other rights to all bodies with compulsory purchase powers. Clause 137 contains that power, which will be available in respect of land acquired by or vested in a specified authority, as defined by subsection (7), when the provision comes into force.

It may help the Committee if I describe the amendments in sub-groups. Amendments 262 and 264 are transitional provisions to enable local planning authorities to do in the future what they can do now. At the moment, land not held for planning purposes may be appropriated for planning purposes to benefit from the power to override easements in section 237 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Clause 137(2)(b) does not provide for appropriation of land, so without the amendments, land already held for other purposes could never benefit from clause 137, even though land newly acquired for the same purpose after commencement could do so. That is clearly not a desired outcome, so amendments 262 and 264 take us to the right place.

Amendments 263, 266 and 269 are the main transitional provisions. Amendments 263 and 266 extend the provisions to other qualifying land, which is defined in amendment 269 as land that is or has been owned by those bodies that already have the power to override easements and other rights. The effect is that those bodies will be able to exercise the new power in clause 137 on that land instead of their existing powers, which will be removed by schedule 11 to the Bill.

Amendment 265 is a substantive amendment. Clause 137(4)(c) states that the power to override easements and so on applies to the use of land where the authority could have purchased the land compulsorily to construct or erect any building for that use. That is too limiting, as some uses do not require a building to be constructed, such as a carpark or landscaping. Amendment 265 therefore extends that provision so that it refers to the carrying out of any works for the use in question.

Amendments 267 and 271 are consequential to the motion to split clause 137 into two clauses. Clause 137 will be unwieldy once the definitions in subsection (7) have been extended by the definition of “other qualifying land” in amendment 269. The motion will therefore split clause 137, with its substantive provisions in subsections (1) to (6) and the new clause containing the definitions in subsections (7) and (8).

Amendments 268 and 270 regularise the definition of local authority in the provisions. Amendments 262, 264 and 269 introduce references to a local authority’s planning purposes. The list of authorities that are local authorities for those purposes is not the same as the general definition of “local authority” in subsection (7). In the future, we only need a general definition in the context of a specified authority, also defined in subsection (7). Amendment 268 therefore removes the now superfluous general definition of “local authority” and amendment 270 places the definition within that of a specified authority.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

I thank the Minister for carefully taking us through the amendments and for answering one of my questions already, but there are a couple of others which I will deal with quickly.

It does make a lot of sense to split the clause in the way the Government suggest. The clause gives acquiring authorities a power to override rights in land following compulsory purchase, similar to provisions in section 237 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which allows planning authorities to override easements and other rights in land following compulsory purchase or in seeking to develop its own land to another purpose. If the land is subject to rights benefiting other persons, such as a right of way or a restrictive covenant, the right can be overridden and development carried out even if the right would be breached. Provision is made for the payment of compensation, but the quantum of compensation is limited to the diminution in value to the interest in land that benefited from the right. There is no provision for recovery of other losses, such as loss of business income, arising as a consequence of the overriding.

I was going to ask the Minister whether the amendment would specifically look at land already held by local authorities that is intended to be appropriated and developed in future, but he answered that question directly. However, are the provisions for compensation sufficient to compensate for losses, particularly for lost profits, and are they compatible with article 1 of the first protocol to the European convention on human rights?

Marcus Jones (Conservative, Nuneaton)

I thank the hon. Lady for her question. Diminution of value is how the system works under current compulsory purchase powers. The provisions are designed to extend the existing powers to other bodies with compulsory purchase powers, not to amend them. I hope that that answers her question.

Clause 138 - Compensation for overridden easements etc

Schedule 11 - Amendments to do with sections 137 and 138

Marcus Jones (Conservative, Nuneaton)

I beg to move amendment 278, in schedule 11, page 107, line 5, at end insert—

Clause 144 - Commencement

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

I call Mr Lewis to move amendment 279.

Brandon Lewis (Conservative, Great Yarmouth)

Mr Gray, the Government are not moving amendment 279 at this stage. We want to consider the matter further and come back on Report.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

The amendment is not moved.