Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill
Public Bill Committee, 23 June 2022.
(Morning)
Examination of Witnesses
Sheryll Murray (Conservative, South East Cornwall)
We will now take evidence from Victoria Hills, chief executive of the Royal Town Planning Institute; Tony Mulhall, associate director of the Land Professional Group and the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors; and David Jackson, head of planning at Savills. Before I call the first Member to ask a question, I remind Members that questions should be limited to matters within the scope of the Bill, and that we must stick to timings in the programme motion that the Committee has agreed. For this session, we have until 12.15 pm. Could I ask the witnesses to introduce themselves for the record, please, starting with Victoria Hills?
Sheryll Murray (Conservative, South East Cornwall)
I now call the shadow Minister, Mr Pennycook, to start the questioning.
Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)
Thank you, Mrs Murray, and thanks to those attending for taking the time to come and speak to us. Could I start with the potential impact of the Bill on the status and functioning of local planning? To what extent do you believe clauses 80 to 84 of the Bill, relating to development plans and national policy, and schedule 7 strike the right balance between the aim of streamlining local planning and the need to allow councils to tailor plans to local circumstances and encourage participationQ95 ?
Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)
Q Can I ask about the NPPF? The review was announced in the White Paper in August 2020. The publication of the final version will not come until 2024, and therefore the revised version will be operational only at that point. Given the number of place makers in the Bill—you have already spoken about the lack of detail in certain areas—that relate to the NPPF, will that delay or have an impact on the legislation? What more needs to be clarified in the Bill in terms of issues such as five-year land supply to ensure the legislation can operate effectively?
Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)
Q Tony or David, do you want to briefly add to that?
Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)
Q Tony, you mentioned the infrastructure levy, and I would like to move on to that aspect of the Bill. Again, there is a noticeable lack of detail on the face of the Bill about how the Government arrived at a considered judgment about how the levy will work, but how do you think it might operate in practice? I put it to you that there is the potential for local authorities to set multiple rates and thresholds —probably by means of a cumbersome examination process—and many of the issues around viability already exist.
It strikes me that the levy is not that dissimilar to the current set-up of the community infrastructure levy. Do you think that is fair? If not, what advantage, if any, do you think the levy will provide over the current system? How do you see it operating in practice on complex brownfield sites? Given the ability to vary rates—in the sense that the Government are proposing a new metric for end-use value, not a new flat rate—what will that do for levelling up? Will local authorities in areas with low land value not just set low levy rates that do not afford much public gain?
Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)
Q I think that is an under-statement, Tony, but your response is very useful. Do you have anything to add it that, David?
Sheryll Murray (Conservative, South East Cornwall)
David, could I ask you to face the microphone please? The sound quality in your last answer was not good, and if you face the microphone, Members may be able to hear your evidence better. Thank you.
Sheryll Murray (Conservative, South East Cornwall)
We are now 20 minutes into this evidence session. In the interests of time, I will call the Minister. If there is any time left at the end, I will come back to you, Mr Pennycook.
Stuart Andrew (Conservative, Pudsey)
Q My first question is straightforward: what practical changes do you think the Bill will make to the people you represent?
Sheryll Murray (Conservative, South East Cornwall)
David, you are looking away from the microphone again and we missed what you said.
Stuart Andrew (Conservative, Pudsey)
Q Thank you. One of the complaints that I hear quite a lot, not just from my own constituents but from people throughout the country, is that people feel planning is something that happens to them, and we know that public engagement with the planning system is incredibly low. Do you think the measures in the Bill—the neighbourhood planning, the priority statements and the digitisation of the whole system—will help to improve community engagement? Do you think that, in turn, it will help to enlist more support for development within communities?
Stuart Andrew (Conservative, Pudsey)
Q My final question returns to the community infrastructure levy. We have said that we want to take a test-and-learn approach, trialling it with a number of authorities, so I welcome the fact that you want to engage in that process. Do you agree that planning authorities often spend a considerable amount of time in negotiation on CIL or section 106, and often find the negotiations going downwards in terms of investment for the local community? That further erodes trust in the process in respect of what will be delivered on the ground for communities. Will this legislation help to free up the time of some of the planners to do some of the more important strategic stuff? I will go to David first.
Rachael Maskell (Labour/Co-operative, York Central)
In the light of the Government’s proposals and commitment to building 300,000 homes by 2025 and real revision of the planning process, do the witnesses believe that is deliverable? Do they believe we will see homes that are predominantly assets, investments, second homes and Airbnbs?Q
Rachael Maskell (Labour/Co-operative, York Central)
Q Could you expand on that?
Rachael Maskell (Labour/Co-operative, York Central)
Q Thank you for that answer. Could I ask Mr Jackson and then Ms Hills, is there anything that you think is missing from the Bill that would address housing inequality?
Rachael Maskell (Labour/Co-operative, York Central)
In view of the time, can I just move quickly over to Ms Hills—[Interruption.]
Sheryll Murray (Conservative, South East Cornwall)
Order. I am afraid that brings us to the end of the allotted time for the Committee to ask questions. May I thank the witnesses on behalf of the Committee for their evidence? We now move on to the next panel.
Sheryll Murray (Conservative, South East Cornwall)
We will now hear evidence from Jonathan Owen, chief executive of the National Association of Local Councils, and Tony Burton CBE, convenor of Neighbourhood Planners London. They are both appearing via Zoom. Gentlemen, may I please you ask to introduce yourselves?
Sheryll Murray (Conservative, South East Cornwall)
We have until 1 o’clock and this time I turn to the Minister first.
Stuart Andrew (Conservative, Pudsey)
Q Thank you, Mrs Murray, and I thank the witnesses for their attendance this morning.
In the previous evidence session, we heard that people often describe planning as something that happens to them. Do you think that the measures in the Bill will increase community engagement in all aspects of the planning process, particularly the development of local plans and other individual planning applications? Do you think that some of the measures, such as the introduction of the neighbourhood priority statements, will help to increase the number of neighbourhood planning groups that might be spread in areas that have been difficult to reach so far?
Stuart Andrew (Conservative, Pudsey)
Q Thank you. In the spirit of wanting to encourage more people to get involved in the development of local plans, we have certainly heard from communities that it is a very complex process. If you are a parish or town council, there may be some resource you can lean on, but in areas that are not covered by town or parish councils such work is reliant on volunteers. Do you think the digitalisation of the process will life a lot easier? Will that encourage more people to take up the mantle of developing a neighbourhood plan for their community?
Sheryll Murray (Conservative, South East Cornwall)
I am afraid that this will have to be the last question from the Ministers before I move to the Opposition spokesman. Minister O’Brien, I believe you have a question.
Neil O'Brien (Conservative, Harborough)
Q Thank you, Mrs Murray. The Bill comes at a time when various processes to look at the reform of neighbourhood governance are still under way, but it still contains a number of important changes, be it the strengthening of neighbourhood plans or the changes to the infrastructure levy, with potentially larger sums for neighbourhood communities. There are also things such as street votes and high street rental auctions, which might give community groups, and indeed parish councils and the like, a chance to get on to the high street and increase their visibility. Reflecting as practitioners of neighbourhood governance, what is your advice on how best we can put into practice the different measures in the Bill so that they best channel the energies and pick up the concerns of neighbourhoods and local communities?
Neil O'Brien (Conservative, Harborough)
Thank you. That was very helpful.
Sheryll Murray (Conservative, South East Cornwall)
I call the shadow Minister.
Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)
Q Thank you, Mrs Murray, and I thank both witnesses for attending. I would ideally like to get through four questions, so I would appreciate it if you could trim your answers to help me do that. The first question relates to national development management plans. Do you take issue with them on principle, on the grounds that they undermine the primacy of local and neighbourhood plans? If not, do you think their use should be circumscribed? If so, how tightly?
Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)
Q Thank you. I am sure you both know that, unlike national policy statements, the Bill proposes no parliamentary approval process for NDMPs and stipulates that the requirement to consult is entirely at the discretion of the Secretary of State. Can I take it that you both agree there should be a greater degree of consultation and parliamentary oversight of these plans?
Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)
Q I have a very specific question relating to clause 83, which states that planning determination must be made
“in accordance with the development plan and any national development management policies, unless material considerations strongly indicate otherwise.”
Is that language sufficiently clear to be easily understood by councils?
Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)
Q The Bill introduces two new development plan documents: spatial development strategies and supplementary plans. However, it provides only for extremely limited opportunities for the public to participate in producing them. Should the Bill be amended to ensure that members of the public can be involved in every aspect of development plan formulation? If so, what might that look like?
Sheryll Murray (Conservative, South East Cornwall)
I call Greg Smith.
Greg Smith (Conservative, Buckingham)
Thank you, Mrs Murray. Good afternoon to our witnesses. I work with a lot of parish councils across my constituency, which is predominantly rural. More often than not, parish councils come to me when there are issues with contentious planning applications and other development-led problems. One of the things that I see on a daily basis is almost a level of burnout among parish councillors, including last year losing an active, prominent chairman of the parish council—he had retired and wanted to Q give something back to his community, only to find that he was working longer hours on parish matters than he had been in the full-time job he had just retired from. Given that the Bill will place greater pressure on parishes—on neighbourhood planning and other matters—without creating another tier of professional politician, how can we rebalance the asks that are put on our parish and town councils? Jonathan, that is probably a question for you predominantly.
Greg Smith (Conservative, Buckingham)
Q That is very helpful. As parishes, town councils and volunteer networks—particularly in London—look to the future on the presumption that this Bill will become law, given the relatively low percentage of areas that have an active neighbourhood plan, how prepared are parish councils and town councils for taking on the work that is going to come down the line. In the case of London, how robust do you think the London boroughs can be?
I ask that through the lens of having been a London councillor for 12 years, before moving to the countryside and later having the privilege of being elected to the House of Commons. Thinking through some of the geography, the London borough I sat on was smaller geographically than some of the parishes in my constituency now. While I totally salute the efforts of volunteer networks across the capital, do we think that the geography in some parts of London, particularly inner-London boroughs, lends itself to those boroughs still having that primacy?
Greg Smith (Conservative, Buckingham)
Q I have a very quick last question, as I am aware another colleague wants to come in. Given that parish and town councils know their communities better than any other tier of government, who should set the level of housing need—or housing targets, to use a controversial phrase—for house building development? Should it be national Government, planning authorities or parish and town councils, or whatever is created in London below the borough level?
Sheryll Murray (Conservative, South East Cornwall)
The final question is from Rachael Maskell.
Rachael Maskell (Labour/Co-operative, York Central)
Q How do you think the Bill could be strengthened to better support neighbourhood planning? What kind of governance structures would you want to see to achieve that?
Rachael Maskell (Labour/Co-operative, York Central)
Thank you.
Sheryll Murray (Conservative, South East Cornwall)
If there are no further questions from Members, I thank the witnesses for their evidence. The Committee will meet again at 2 pm in this room to hear further evidence on the Bill.
Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)
We are now sitting in public and the proceedings are being broadcast. Members may remove their jackets if they want to because of the temperature in the room. Good afternoon, everyone—I am not filibustering for any particular reason, other than we do not seem to have our guests at the moment. Andy Street, the West Midlands Mayor, will be our first witness.
I should remind Members to limit their questions to something vaguely to do with what the Committee is considering. This is of course the only time the Ministers have fun during the whole of the proceedings, because they get to ask questions and do not have to answer them. Next week, it is their turn to be scrutinised.
Examination of Witness
Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)
We are now in public session. Good afternoon. I can see Andy Street, Mayor of the West Midlands. Welcome to you. For the record, will you say who you are?
Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)
Thank you. We will go straight to the Opposition. Shadow Minister.
Alex Norris (Labour/Co-operative, Nottingham North)
Thank you, Mr Bone, and thank you, Mayor Andy Street, for your time this afternoon. It is much appreciatedQ117 .
I will start with a simple question: with the experience you now have of being Mayor of a huge part of the country, and of the powers you have been exercising, what do you see next for the powers of the West Midlands Mayor?
Alex Norris (Labour/Co-operative, Nottingham North)
Q Thank you, that is really helpful. I am hoping that you might pull back the curtain, in so far as you are willing to, on the operations of a combined authority. Your membership is very big, so how does that work in practice? How do you work with those who have democratic mandates and with others who have been selected, because they are involved with your local enterprise partnerships? I believe you also have a trade union representative—I would always suggest that people join trade unions, because it seems a good idea to me. I wondered how that works in practice, how you try to build consensus and how you work with your combined authority?
Alex Norris (Labour/Co-operative, Nottingham North)
Q Moving on, there has been some interest, in both oral and written evidence, in clause 140, on compulsory purchase orders. Do you think that the powers go far enough? If not, what more would you want to see, perhaps in a Government amendment? Would it be an opportunity to address the issue of hope value in the legacy of the Land Compensation Act 1961?
Alex Norris (Labour/Co-operative, Nottingham North)
Q That is absolutely fine. I appreciate your candour. I have just one very quick one to finish, Mr Bone. The written evidence for this Bill is starting to trickle through. There seems to be more with particular reference to the West Midlands. Obviously, we had the chief executive of the combined authority here on Tuesday. We seem to have had more interest in police and fire functions in the West Midlands than on any other issue. Some of that evidence is contradictory. Can you express your definitive position, as Mayor of the West Midlands, as to what the future is in this area, what level of interest you have, and how that might be shared, or not shared, with other Mayors that you work with?
Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)
For the Government side, I call the Minister.
Stuart Andrew (Conservative, Pudsey)
Q With permission, Mr Bone, I shall ask the first question, and then Minister O’Brien has some further questions to ask.
Good afternoon, Andy. It is good to see you and thank you for giving up your time.
Stuart Andrew (Conservative, Pudsey)
Q You have been quite a champion of brownfield sites and regeneration, particularly with a focus of trying to preserve many of the greenfield areas in the West Midlands. There are a number of planning reforms in the Bill. Do you see those as potentially helping you in your aim to deliver the housing that the West Midlands needs and, in particular, to level up the parts of the region on which you are really keen to focus?
Neil O'Brien (Conservative, Harborough)
Q Thank you, Andy, for joining us. The Bill makes various provisions to speed up and to simplify the creation of new combined authorities and to make it easier, as we have just discussed, for Mayors to take on PCC powers. It also makes it easier to create combined authorities in two-tier areas through the combined county authorities clauses. Do you think the extension of mayoral combined authorities to more areas of the country is a good idea, and what would your advice be to places that are setting up new combined authorities?
Neil O'Brien (Conservative, Harborough)
Q Thank you. I have a very brief supplementary. One of the levelling-up missions that this Bill puts on a statutory basis is to increase the public domestic R&D spending outside the greater south-east by a third over the spending review period, and one of the institutions helping us to drive that is the new innovation accelerator in the West Midlands. How, other than through the legislation that we are passing, can we achieve that goal of driving high-quality public investment in R&D outside the golden triangle, and what role do you think the innovation accelerator can play?
Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)
I call Rachael Maskell.
Rachael Maskell (Labour/Co-operative, York Central)
Thank you, Mr Bone. I would like to ask about site viability and how the legislation can help, particularly with brown site regeneration developments, and about how the aspiration of local communities around economic generation—particularly on the back of talking about cluster economies—can lead to that opportunity to build out, versus the demand to get viability on the site and capital receipts, with people therefore opting for high-cost housing, which often does not meet the needs of the community.Q
Rachael Maskell (Labour/Co-operative, York Central)
Q I really appreciate that answer; it is incredibly helpful. If I may, I will just ask a further question about that. How do you believe the infrastructure levy will help with bringing forward affordable housing and vital infrastructure on to sites? Do you have any concerns over the timing of the delivery of those funds?
Rachael Maskell (Labour/Co-operative, York Central)
Thank you.
Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)
Thank you. I call Greg Smith.
Greg Smith (Conservative, Buckingham)
Thank you, Mr Bone. I have asked this question of a number of the witnesses. There has been a controversy in recent years on the assessment of housing need for an area and who should decide what the housing need is for an area when it comes to the development of neighbourhood plans, local plans and so on. Where do you think is the most appropriate level for housing need to be assessed to put into local plans? Should it be national Government? Should it be principal planning authorities? Should it be—as in the West Midlands, which you are the Mayor of—mayoral areas? Or should it be at a lower tier?Q
Greg Smith (Conservative, Buckingham)
Q I am very grateful for that answer, which I recognise from my own constituency and the wider county that it sits in. On the basis that the system is broken, the Bill would seem like the obvious legislative vehicle to fix it. I am trying to tease back to my original question, which was about who should decide and using what data. What would be your best suggestion? I appreciate that there will be no magic bullet, but what would be your best solution for deciding a new system of determination?
Greg Smith (Conservative, Buckingham)
Q I appreciate that the use of the word “target” is controversial in this debate, but would there be benefit in making any figure that is calculated by the ONS and propagated by central Government locked in as advisory, as opposed to a set-in-stone number?
Greg Smith (Conservative, Buckingham)
That is very helpful. Thank you.
Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)
We have unfortunately almost run out of time. I was tempted to see whether the Housing Minister wanted to come back and chat to our witness, but he seems to be pointing to the fact that time is up. Or does he want to use the remaining minute?
Stuart Andrew (Conservative, Pudsey)
The time is up.
Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)
The time is up, I am told. Thank you so much for coming, Mr Street. Your evidence was extremely clear and very helpful to the Committee.
Examination of Witnesses
Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)
Thank you, Nicholas, for waiting so patiently. You are here and alive.
Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)
We now move on to the fourth panel. I will not list everyone’s names, because I am going to ask them to introduce themselves. I will first ask the witness who is with us in the room to introduce himself.
Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)
I ask the lady on the Zoom call to introduce herself.
Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)
And the gentleman on screen.
Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)
For the benefit of the Committee, I am told that we have until 3.10 pm with this panel. Who would like to start? The Housing Minister seems most keen.
Stuart Andrew (Conservative, Pudsey)
Q Thank you, Mr Bone. There has been quite a bit of criticism that much of the development that we see around the country is the same wherever you are, and that there is a lack of imaginative design. Some would describe those developments as uninspiring places to live. How important is it to improve the design of new developments for the people who live there and to encourage more support for development in communities?
Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)
Q Lizzie, do you want to come in on that?
Stuart Andrew (Conservative, Pudsey)
Q Looking more broadly at heritage, there have been a number of calls for the strengthening of measures. Do you think the Bill goes far enough in answering the calls that the sector have been making for some time?
Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)
Q Nicholas, did you have anything that you wanted to add?
Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)
Q Adrian, did you want to add anything?
Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)
I should have said to the witnesses at the beginning that you might be surprised that you are getting questioned by the Minister, but the advantage of these evidence sessions is that we can have a wider debate and get more information, which feeds into the process later on, so Ministers are taking the chance to get your evidence for that purpose. We are now going to go to the shadow Minister.
Alex Norris (Labour/Co-operative, Nottingham North)
Thank you, Mr Bone, and thank you to our witnesses this afternoon. Your time is much appreciated. I also want to turn to heritage. It is an area of the Bill about which there is a high degree of consensus on its importance. As you say Lizzie, it is important that it is seen as a levelling-up issue and a place issue, and I think that gives us exciting scope to build on. I will turn Q to clause 92, and I will go to you first, Lizzie, but I hope the other panellists might put their views in, too. I will just ask you to expand on your written evidence, in which you say that there is scope to go a little bit further. What sorts of things did you have in mind?
Alex Norris (Labour/Co-operative, Nottingham North)
That is very helpful. Do the other panellists have anything to add?
Alex Norris (Labour/Co-operative, Nottingham North)
Q Turning to clause 93 on the stop notices, are you confident that they are rigorous and strong enough to beat back unscrupulous developers? Lizzie, you mentioned your concerns about the period between now and Royal Assent; I think you were making a point about greater risk. Could you cover that in your answer? I am interested to hear the views of all the panellists on that.
Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)
Nicholas?
Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)
Anybody else?
Rachael Maskell (Labour/Co-operative, York Central)
Q Thank you ever so much to the witnesses. In representing York, I certainly understand the importance of archaeology, so I emphasise the point that has been made. Will you elaborate further on whether there are any omissions from the Bill or anything that could be added to help protect our archaeology? If I may, I will go to you, Ms Glithero-West.
Rachael Maskell (Labour/Co-operative, York Central)
Thank you.
Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)
Nicholas, do you have anything to add?
Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)
Adrian?
Rachael Maskell (Labour/Co-operative, York Central)
Thank you very much.
Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)
I call Greg Smith.
Greg Smith (Conservative, Buckingham)
Q Before I ask my question, I should say this: it is not an interest to declare, but I should say for transparency that when I was a councillor in Fulham, Mr Boys Smith was one of my ward residents and he is known to me.
Greg Smith (Conservative, Buckingham)
It was many moons ago, but I thought I should put that on the record for transparency.
We have been looking at what the Bill is seeking to do in terms of protecting heritage and identifying that which makes a place within the planning system. For rural communities, one of the defining characteristics, certainly of every village that I represent, is the farmland and the food production that goes on in that village. It is the farmers who maintain the hedgerows, the beauty of the place, and so on. Therefore, can I explore with you, in the spirit of protections for heritage, place, and identity for a locality, how much, in a rural setting food, production and agriculture should equally be protected or at least considered as part of the planning process? Perhaps we could start with Lizzie.
Greg Smith (Conservative, Buckingham)
Q That is certainly part of it. To clarify, it is equally the case that a lot of rural communities would not look the way they do if it were not for farmers maintaining the hedgerows, looking after the land and maintaining the footpaths that people use for leisure. If you are going to identify the characteristic and heritage of a place, as well as the physical architecture, in a rural community, it must surely equally apply to that which makes the countryside happen—if I can boil it down to its lowest common denominator. My question is, to what extent, on top of architectural heritage and so on, should that equally be considered in the planning process?
Greg Smith (Conservative, Buckingham)
Q Thank you. I appreciate that answer. Before I bring in the others, I appreciate that there will be crossover with the Environment Act and the Agriculture Act. However, I am looking at this very much through the lens of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, and planning reform. Mr Boys Smith, you were indicating that you would like to come in.
Greg Smith (Conservative, Buckingham)
Thank you. Adrian, do you have a view on this?
Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)
We encourage you!
Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)
Q We have time just before the end to ask each of our witnesses to say briefly what they think we should have asked and did not. This is your opportunity to influence the Committee before we go into the detailed discussion of the Bill. I will start with Adrian.
Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)
Thank you. Lizzie, as I said to Adrian, what would be the one point you would want to make? [Laughter.]
Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)
Briefly, Nicholas.
Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)
In 90 seconds.
Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)
Thank you all very much. I very much appreciate your evidence. That ends this session, and we will now move on to our fifth panel.
Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)
Q One of the witnesses is in the room with us, and the others are on Zoom. Starting with the witness in the room, could you say who you are and who you represent?
Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)
Thank you. The witnesses can expect questions from Ministers because the object of this Committee is to gather evidence to influence our detailed consideration of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)
I thank the witnesses for their attendance, which is appreciated. I have a general question to start, and then a few specifics. Do you think the Bill is a missed opportunity to respond as needed to the climate and environment emergency? If that is your view, in what ways would you like to see the Bill overhauled to that endQ ?
Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)
Q Many thanks. Ms McKenzie and Mr Miner, do you have anything to add?
Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)
Q There were lots of very general points there; I want to get into the specific. I would like to ask you two questions, so I ask the witnesses to be as brief as they can to ensure I can do that. Dr Benwell, you mentioned environmental outcome reports. What is the panel’s view on them as a replacement for environmental impact assessments and strategic environmental assessments? To an extent, can you give a considered view given the lack of detail in the Bill as to what they will look like in practice?
Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)
Q Finally, do you believe that clause 117 could potentially lead to an erosion of existing environmental protections? Do you believe that clause 120 provides adequate protection? Will it ensure that, at a minimum, there is no regression from existing protections? If not, how would you ideally like to see the Bill strengthened?
Neil O'Brien (Conservative, Harborough)
This question is directed at Paul in the first instance. The Bill contains a number of measures from the infrastructure levy to strengthening compulsory purchase order powers, high street rental auctions and heritage protections that are intended to drive more brownfield, urban regeneration. It also contains measures to create more combined authorities with transport and regeneration powers as part of building on the Government’s urban uplift and shift towards a regeneration-led approach to planning and housing. What assessment have you made of the advantages in embodied carbon of building reuse and of denser, better public transport-connected cities in reducing pollution? What is your take on that model of development?Q
Neil O'Brien (Conservative, Harborough)
Let me extend that question to CarolynQ .
Neil O'Brien (Conservative, Harborough)
One of the other things the Bill does is take forward measures to widen and deepen the devolution agenda by making it easier to set up new combined authorities, for authorities to join them and for them to gain new powers. How would you like to see the devolution agenda drive positive environmental outcomes? Is it primarily through helping towards our transport mission and better public transport? Is it through the housing quality mission? Or is it something else entirely? How do you think the devolution agenda can best serve a wider environmental agendaQ ? I put that to Carolyn first.
Neil O'Brien (Conservative, Harborough)
Thank you. Paul, on the transport powers that are devolved through devolution deals, as well as getting more people on to public transport, which is good for the environment, what is the potential impact of improved public transport in driving more brownfield regeneration rather than sprawl? You must have done quite a lot of work on this kind of thing.Q
Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)
Richard, we have not forgotten you; we will ask you to comment in a second.
Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)
Richard, you have been very patient.
Rachael Maskell (Labour/Co-operative, York Central)
Q Communities are facing multiple challenges, and not just on flooding but on drought. How could the legislation be strengthened to mitigate those climate risks?
Rachael Maskell (Labour/Co-operative, York Central)
May I have a supplementary question?
Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)
I am afraid that we are going to be caught by the clock, because I now have another Member who wants to come in. Paul and Carolyn might want to come in too. We could have gone on with this session for ages. Quickly.
Rachael Maskell (Labour/Co-operative, York Central)
Q I will be brief. There has been a lot of talk about brownfield development first, and I understand that, but if are we talking about levelling up—you referred to the whole wellbeing of an individual—should we not also be looking at how brownfield could perhaps be swapped with some greenfield, in order to ensure that we do not build such density in urban areas, which is actually quite harmful to personal wellbeing and health?
Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)
Sorry, I am just going to have to stop you there and move on.
Sarah Atherton (Conservative, Wrexham)
Dr Benwell, you spoke about bolder outcomes in devolved Administrations, so you will probably know about this. The Welsh Government have introduced phosphate mitigation targets in areas of special interest, which Q covers my constituency. In practice, that has halted all development for many months, including care home extensions, and the impact is delayed discharges from care. A homeless hostel has not been built. It has been left to the local authorities to scramble around with developers and Natural Resources Wales to find a way forward. That still has not happened, so how could the Bill square that?
Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)
Paul, did you want to add anything—in 60 seconds?
Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)
I am really sorry to our witnesses. We could have gone on for much longer, but time has beaten us. We must move on now to our sixth panel. I very much thank the witnesses for their evidence.
Examination of Witness
Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)
As there is only one gentleman on this panel, it is easy for me to ask him to introduce himself.
Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)
For your benefit, Sir, the purpose of this Committee is to gather evidence to help us when we consider the Bill as we go through it line by line next week. One advantage of this Committee is that the Minister gets to ask questions. That is the only fun that he will have in this Committee, so I think we will start with him.
Stuart Andrew (Conservative, Pudsey)
Q Thank you very much, Mr Bone.
Dr Ellis, thank you very much for your time this afternoon. Could you perhaps tell us what your organisation and its members think about many of the reforming aspects of the planning system that are contained in the Bill?
Stuart Andrew (Conservative, Pudsey)
Q Given that about 39% of England is covered by up-to-date local plans at the moment, do you think that the measures in the Bill will make it easier, or is there anything else that should have been included to try to progress these plans; to give confidence to communities about what will be developed in their areas?
Stuart Andrew (Conservative, Pudsey)
Q Do you welcome the strengthening of neighbourhood planning and the neighbourhood statements included in the Bill to try to engage more of that community involvement?
Stuart Andrew (Conservative, Pudsey)
Q Finally, we have heard time and again about complexity and bureaucracy in the development of local and neighbourhood plans. What has been the reaction of your association’s members to the digitisation of the planning process in the Bill?
Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)
I call the shadow Minister, Matthew Pennycook.
Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)
Q Thank you, Hugh, for giving up your time to speak to us. I want to start with some of the measures you have spoken about in terms of local planning. The TCPA is on record as having concerns about some of the centralising thrust of the Bill. What impact do you believe clauses 82 to 84 and schedule 7 could have on public participation, trust and confidence in the planning system, and how would the TCPA ideally like to see them amended?
Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)
Q The Bill proposes the abandonment of the duty of co-operation. What do you think are the likely consequences of that proposal for strategic planning and the delivery of new homes?
Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)
Q Part 6 of the Bill aims to standardise the range of powers available to each type of development corporation, and gives local authorities the power to request their formation. Are those measures likely to have much of an impact? If not, how might the Bill be strengthened to ensure that development corporations can contribute more effectively to delivery?
Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)
Q In our previous session, we had an interesting and thoughtful discussion with witnesses about how the planning system might help us to respond to the climate and environment emergency. I will finish with a question that I asked in our second session. You will know that nowhere in legislation is the purpose of the planning system set down. Do you think there is any value in more clearly defining in legislation the aims of the planning system on climate change and other issues? Is the Bill an opportunity do to that, and if so, what would that look like?
Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)
I call the Minister.
Neil O'Brien (Conservative, Harborough)
Through the devolution agenda, we have devolved powers at scale over things such as transport and regeneration, giving places the power to create things such as development co-operations. Through this Bill, we will make it easier and quicker to set up new combined authorities, particularly in two-tier areas, and make it easier for them to widen and take on new powers. There are also a range of measures in the Bill to drive more brownfield regeneration—the infrastructure levy, CPO reforms, high street rental options, street votes, heritage protections, and so on.Q
As we negotiate devolution deals with areas such as Derbyshire, where we are in talks at present, how do we best bring together the new instruments and new combined authorities to achieve everything we potentially can through spatial planning to drive the kind of join-up you have been arguing for in this session?
Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)
Thank you, Mr Ellis, for your clear and concise evidence. We very much appreciate it. We must now move on to our seventh session of the day.
Examination of Witnesses
Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)
I have in front of me a gentleman and a lady. Would the lady like to introduce herself for the record?
Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)
Thank you. We are going to take questions from members of the Committee, starting with the shadow Minister.
Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)
Q May I start with the infrastructure levy? We touched on it with an earlier panel, and I will ask almost the same question that I put to witnesses earlier. The potential for local authorities to set multiple levies and threshold rates—no doubt by a cumbersome examination process with some of the issues around viability that already exist—strikes me as not too dissimilar from CIL, so I am trying to get from witnesses a sense of whether you think that is fair. If that is not a fair assessment, what clear advantages, if any, do you think the levy will provide for? How do you see it operating in practice on complex brownfield sites? Finally—and particularly importantly, given the thrust of the Bill—given the ability to vary rates, will the levy do much for levelling up? Will local authorities in areas with low land value not just set low levy rates that do not lead to much in the way of public gain?
Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)
We are going to carry on, but we are having a slight problem with your sound and picture, Kate. If it breaks down, we might turn the video off and just have your audio, but we will see.
Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)
Q Kate, may I pick you up on the first point you raised: the potential impact of the levy on affordable housing supply? In responding to the publication of the Bill, the NHF stated on your website—I hope I have got this right—that it was pleased that the Government had written into the Bill a mechanism
“to ensure affordable housing levels will be maintained, with current levels as a minimum.”
Correct me if I am wrong, but I assume that you were referring to proposed new section 204G of the Planning Act 2008, which is discussed in schedule 11. I wanted to probe why you think the language in that clause, or anything else the Government have said in relation to the Bill, is anywhere near robust enough to guarantee the maintenance of current affordable housing levels. I read the language, which is
“must have regard…to the desirability of ensuring”
as quite weak in terms of ensuring that we see that affordable supply of housing come forward.
Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)
Q That is really helpful, thank you. It seems—how do I phrase this?—that it is not entirely explicit on the face of the Bill, but we have got a sense from what Ministers have said on this on previous occasions and what they are saying generally that they see a continued use for section 106 on certain sites. Do you think the Bill is an opportunity to reform and strengthen the operation of section 106 agreements? If so, how might the legislation be amended to that end?
Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)
Q Final question. Assuming the Government do not fall in the coming months, and the Bill becomes law and is implemented, you know that the infrastructure levy will be rolled out—the Minister has made much of this—on a test and learn basis. What is your understanding of how that will work and progress? Do you foresee any challenges once the Bill has come into force, where that infrastructure levy is not operating around how the new provisions in the Bill interact with the existing system as we transition towards the levy?
Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)
We are having slight problems with the sound. We will just give it a second. Do you want to carry on?
Stuart Andrew (Conservative, Pudsey)
Q I thank you both for your time this afternoon. We know that protracted section 106 negotiations can sometimes result in a reduction in the amount of affordable housing from what was originally intended to be delivered. We are introducing the right to require, so we can get as much, if not almost all, of our ambition to achieve that. Are there any specific points you would like us to look at as we develop that side of the policy? More broadly, how do you see the proposals on access to information on land helping housing associations to look at opportunities to deliver more affordable housing?
Rachael Maskell (Labour/Co-operative, York Central)
Q In areas of high land value, how do we bring forward sites that are not built just for investment—Airbnb, asset homes and second homes—but are built to meet local need? What measures would you add to the Bill?
Rachael Maskell (Labour/Co-operative, York Central)
Q How do we ensure the viability of a site for development? Are measures just too short term, and should we be looking longer term? Is there anything we can put in the Bill to ensure we do that, to get the right kind of housing into the future? I am particularly cognisant of the comment made about maintaining the target of housing developed, as opposed to looking at what is actually needed within a particular community, the type of affordability or social housing.
Rachael Maskell (Labour/Co-operative, York Central)
Thank you.
Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)
Q Witnesses, you have been very good and very kind and answered all the questions; now it is your chance, just before we finish. The Members around this table will deal with line-by-line consideration of the Bill next week, which will in due course become an Act of Parliament. I will start with you, Kate: what is the one thing they should do, and what is the one thing they should not do?
Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)
Thanks. Gavin?
Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)
Thank you very much. You have been excellent witnesses. We will move on to our eighth panel, who will appear not on screen but in front of us.
Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)
Gentlemen, thank you so much for coming today. We should be able to hear you, and you will not freeze mid-frame, which is welcome. For the record, could you state your name and who you represent?
Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)
Gosh. Is the Minister starting this one?
Neil O'Brien (Conservative, Harborough)
What fun.
Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)
What fun you will have, Mr O’Brien.
Neil O'Brien (Conservative, Harborough)
Q Thank you, Mr Bone. May I apologise, as I will have to leave a few minutes before the end of the session?
Alex and Will, thank you for joining us in person. The Bill takes forward the devolution agenda by making it easier and quicker to set up new combined authorities, particularly in two-tier areas. It also contains a number of powers to speed up and improve regeneration, from the infrastructure levy to compulsory purchase order powers, high street rental auctions, street votes, heritage protections and land market transparency. How can we use both the devolution agenda and these new tools best to drive urban regeneration and more brownfield development—the kind of development that a lot of people want to see? How can we build on what we are doing in the Bill and make the powers that we are creating work most effectively? I will pick first on Will and then go to Alex.
Neil O'Brien (Conservative, Harborough)
Q Thank you. Can I press Alex on street votes? Is this something you welcome? What observations, if any, do you have about how we could potentially make a success of that policy?
Neil O'Brien (Conservative, Harborough)
Q I have one last question, for Will. One of the things the infrastructure levy does is have the neighbourhood share, in the way that CIL does, but CIL only applies to a certain number of authorities. How might that connect to the work you have been doing on what you called double devolution and neighbourhood-level governance?
Neil O'Brien (Conservative, Harborough)
Q On CPO powers, which the Bill streamlines by speeding up the process and simplifies by taking out bits of the process, while also potentially enabling the capturing of more value for the community and for wider infrastructure projects, with implications for consent and regeneration, what observations, if any, do you both have about the plans in the Bill on CPOs and how we make a success of them? Shall we go to Will first, then Alex?
Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)
Mr Pennycook.
Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)
No questions.
Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)
Ah, right. We come to Mr Henry.
Darren Henry (Conservative, Broxtowe)
Turning to CCA England Mayors, I think Onward has written a report about England’s Mayors and their potential. The Bill recognises that the more power you give to these local leaders, the more accountability measures you need to bring into place. Do you feel that the Bill goes far enough with things such as audit committees for us to be able to hold local leaders to account?Q
Darren Henry (Conservative, Broxtowe)
Q Have you got a country in mind that is doing it really well?
Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)
I am going to call Greg Smith, but I will put the witnesses on notice that, at the end, I will give you the opportunity to change the course of history by telling the Committee what it should be doing.
Greg Smith (Conservative, Buckingham)
Q I am going to throw something of a curveball, because it is the sort of question that I am hopeful the think-tank world might have a view on. Throughout a lot of the evidence that we have heard during previous sessions on this Bill Committee—Alex, you talked about the south-east housing crisis in one of your answers—we have this presumption that building is the only answer to the question. From my constituency casework and from prodding around the issue, I have a theory that we do not really have a very good grasp on the gap between supply and demand, particularly in London and the south-east, where house prices are so much higher.
As we are looking at a Bill that essentially enables greater house building in our neighbourhood planning, can you offer a view on whether factors such as stamp duty, particularly at the punitively high rate that George Osborne imposed as Chancellor on the top end of the market, have had a disproportionate effect on movement within the housing stock we already have in this country? If people are not moving up to the very top tier of housing—the very large family homes and so on—there is a domino effect all the way down to the bottom of the market for people who are trying to get into starter homes and one or two-bedroom flats. Do you know of any assessment, either by your own think-tanks or across the think-tank world, that could answer that question? Just how big, in reality, is the gap between supply and demand? What other factors within the state’s control could we look at to take those barriers away?
Greg Smith (Conservative, Buckingham)
Q Just to clarify the question that I am trying to get to the bottom of, my point is not that there will not ultimately be a gap between supply and demand; it is about the effect of factors such as stamp duty on supply. How much are the barriers to movement in the housing market dampening supply?
Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)
Q I am going to go to the final question. Alex, what is the one thing that this Committee could do to improve things?
Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)
Thank you for your excellent evidence today.