Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Public Bill Committee, 19 July 2022.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

Before we begin, I have some preliminary announcements. Members should please email copies of their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. No food or drinks are permitted, but there is plenty of water provided—obviously, you should drink that today. If you would like to remove your jackets, feel free to do so, and please keep electronic devices on silent mode.

Clause 88 - Contents of a neighbourhood development plan

Tim Farron (Liberal Democrat, Westmorland and Lonsdale)

I beg to move amendment 119, in clause 88, page 94, line 27, at end insert—

“(aa) policies (however expressed) relating to the proportion of dwellings which may be in—

(i) use class 3A (second homes), or

(ii) use class 3B (holiday rentals)

under Schedule 1 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (S.I. 1987/764).”

This amendment would enable neighbourhood plans to include policies relating to the proportion of dwellings which may be second homes and short-term holiday lets under use classes created by NC38.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Tim Farron (Liberal Democrat, Westmorland and Lonsdale)

Good morning, Mr Paisley; it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship on this lovely day. I am grateful for the opportunity to move the amendment and to speak to new clauses 38 and 39.

I volunteered for this Committee for many reasons: to spend time in great company and to be involved with a Bill that gives great opportunities to make a difference for this country, if we get it right. However, my fundamental motivation was to try to address a problem that has afflicted my community in Cumbria, and others, for a number of decades, and which I referenced in my maiden speech more than 17 years ago. That problem has got catastrophically worse in the last two years.

Before the pandemic, the average house price in my constituency was about £250,000, and the average household income was about £26,000. In the lakes and the dales, there is a much greater disparity in scale, where average house prices were already pushing towards £500,000 and average household incomes were no greater than in the rest of the district. There were 5,500 people on a council house waiting list and we have fewer social rented properties than that. Second home ownership was creating massive problems with under-population in villages that were losing their schools, their post offices and their bus services. In many communities, more than 50% of properties were empty.

Even before the pandemic, there was a huge problem. We have pushed the Government to take action for years, but we have seen precious little action. Since the pandemic, the situation has gone from crisis to catastrophe and urgent action is needed. The Government are dragging their feet; the one or two things they have talked about doing to address those issues will not even touch the sides.

Let us look at the situation now. Between June 2020 and June 2021—we are awaiting the figures for this year—in South Lakeland alone there was a 32% rise in the number of holiday lets. That area includes the most populated parts of the Lake district and the Yorkshire dales, and there was a colossal number of holiday lets to start off with, so where does a rise of 32% come from? They were not built for the purpose; they were long-term lets that migrated into short-term lets or Airbnbs.

According to estate agents, up to 80% of all house transactions in the last two years fall into the second homes market—to people who own a property but do not live in that property. From live information—literally, given yesterday—AirDNA says that within our community there are 8,111 short-term available lets. Rightmove sent a snapshot yesterday of 262 long-term lets, which means that there are 35 times more short-term lets in our community than long-term lets. We are seeing lakeland clearances, which have taken place in just a couple of years. People have been evacuated and expelled from the communities where they served and worked, where they may have grown up, where they sought to retire. People of all ages, not just the working-age population, have been evicted under section 21. Typically, those homes then migrate instantly into the Airbnb market.

Let me give you some examples. Debbie in Windermere, a hotel manager, was evicted from her property under section 21 and had to move to Lancaster, 30 miles away. She could find no way of staying in that community. As a consequence, that hotel is still without a manager. I think of a couple in Ambleside: him a chef, her a teaching assistant. They have one child in school and one about to go to school. They have been evicted from their property, which is now worth five times more on Airbnb than they were paying for it. They do not live anywhere in Cumbria now. They both had to give up their jobs and pull their children out of school and nursery, robbing that community of their services and their work.

I also think of Mike, who I spoke to on Saturday. He works in Windermere and lived in Troutbeck Bridge, just two or three miles up the road. He was evicted from his long-term let there, where he had lived for years, and he now has to live in Morecambe. It is a lovely place, but it is 30 miles away. He will soon have to give up his job. Good luck to his employer in finding anyone to replace him.

In the relatively small Yorkshire dales town of Sedbergh, 24 people were evicted during a two-week period in April. Not a single property is available on Rightmove to help those people. There is no doubt whatsoever of the reasons for that. I have some schools in our national parks reporting drops in school rolls of between a fifth and a third of their entire school numbers over the past two years. There are consequences to inaction. We are talking about the death of communities. It is happening as we speak.

We are seeing the annihilation of the workforce. In a study a few weeks ago, 63% of Cumbria Tourism’s members reported that they had to operate below capacity last year because they could not find staff. The workforce is being expelled at a rate of knots. What is the impact of that on our economy? Cumbria Tourism is the biggest employer in Cumbria, contributing £3.5 billion to the Exchequer. Our businesses are underperforming because they are understaffed, because the workforce has been cleared out. In Sedbergh, again, just a few weeks ago—in a snapshot of this one dales town—there were 104 unfilled vacancies. By the way, there are zero spaces available for any long-term let on Rightmove.

Look at the care sector. In the census report a couple of weeks ago, we saw a 30% rise in retirement age groups in our communities. Subsequently, there is a massive rise in the demand for care and a massive drop in the number of people available to provide that care. A tragedy is happening on our doorsteps and within our communities, and not just in the lakes and dales, but elsewhere in Cumbria and other parts of rural Britain. What we are seeing is the tragedy not only of divided families, but of lost services—the impact on schools under pressure and on bus services being lost because of a lack of an active, full-time population in our communities.

Those of us who live in or around a national park—I have the honour of representing two—are not trying to hold them tightly and keep them for ourselves. We want to share them with the country. We are stewards of our national parks for the whole country. However, due to Government inaction and the market being broken, we are seeing our communities and national parks being turned into no-go zones for anybody who is not a millionaire.

There is nothing in the Bill that even touches the sides of being able to tackle this crisis. I want the Government to tackle it with the urgency and speed with which the problem itself is developing. Rarely would we find anything like this amendment and these new clauses when looking at legislation, but they are genuinely the silver bullet to give communities the power to take back control and ensure that they breathe life back into those communities.

I will briefly talk the Committee through the amendment and the new clauses. New clause 38 would provide local planning authorities with the power to make a difference. Under current planning criteria, a permanent dwelling, a second home and a holiday let are all the same category of use, technically. Practically, of course they are not the same category of planning use; they are three very distinct categories. All that the new clause would do is allow local council planning authorities in the Lake district and the Yorkshire dales to be able to differentiate between the three. In a community such as Coniston, where more than half of the homes are not lived in all year round, the council will be able to set a cap and say, “No more.” These measures are about simply giving our communities the power to decide their own destiny.

I simply ask the Minister to take this matter seriously and accept the amendment and the new clause. Together, they would allow local communities to decide their own destiny, to prevent the clearance of a local working-age—indeed all-age—population and ensure that our national parks and rural communities, not just in Cumbria but across the country, are available to everyone, not just the wealthy.

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley. I will be relatively brief, both because we have discussed these issues extensively in Committee and because the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale made the case so comprehensively, speaking about the communities in his constituency and the lives and livelihoods of those who make up the communities.

As I have said before, one need only speak to any hon. Member with acute housing pressures of the kind the hon. Gentleman set out to realise that the Government have not got the balance right between the benefits of second homes and short-term holiday lets to local economies and the impact of excessive concentrations of them on local people. It has also become apparent over the course of previous debates that there is a divide between those on the Opposition side and those on the Government side when it comes to how urgently and how boldly we must act to address the problems of excessive second home ownership and its staggering growth. The hon. Gentleman gave truly staggering figures of short-term holiday lets, showing the problems they cause around the country.

The Opposition are clear that we need urgent action in a range of areas to quickly bear down on this serious problem. There is no doubt in my mind that the introduction of new planning use classes could—along with a suite of other measures, because more measures would be needed—go a long way to restoring the balance that we all agree must be struck, giving communities back a measure of control that they do not currently enjoy. For that reason, we wholeheartedly support the amendments and urge the Government to give them serious consideration.

Rachael Maskell (Labour/Co-operative, York Central)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley. I want to add my support to these amendments. The issue seems to be that holiday destinations in particular have been hit by the Airbnb market. I am sure the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale will be hearing from many of his colleagues about the implications it has, whether they are from Cornwall or Devon, and it is now spreading across the country.

York has been hit, in particular over the pandemic. We have seen a 45% increase in Airbnbs over that period, and it is hitting our communities hard. According to today’s figures, there are 2,068 Airbnbs in my community. We are seeing an extraction economy, where money is being taken out of our local economy predominantly by people from London and the south-east, who can afford to buy these additional properties. They are clearly trying to make a profit, but it comes at the expense of our communities.

We have heard about the impact on public services and the local economy. Hospitality venues are now not able to open full-time for the guest economy, because they cannot recruit the necessary skills. It is skewing the whole economy and our public services, in particular care work, and that is now orientating into our NHS. It is jacking up the house prices in the area, and we are getting this heated housing market because demand is so great. We hear about people coming and buying six, seven or eight of these properties at one go.

The result of this increased demand is that local people are impacted. They are faithfully saving for their mortgage, but when they go to put an offer on a house, someone undercuts them by tens of thousands of pounds, because they know that they will get the return. Renting a property in York costs, on average, £945 a month. An Airbnb stay over a weekend costs £700. That is why we are seeing this massive reorientation. Section 21 notices are being issued to people in the private rented sector to move them on to make way for Airbnbs.

The undercutting of prices is also impacting on the regulated B&B and guesthouse market, and because Airbnb and second homes are not regulated, the health and safety is not there, and there are so many other checks that are not in place. A registration scheme, which I know the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport is consulting on, is completely insufficient for addressing the challenge. It is a new challenge, and the Bill provides the Government with the opportunity to right the wrongs of what is happening and at the scale it is happening.

Creating these new classes would bring opportunity, but revenue can also be drawn from them. Many of the properties in question are classified under small business rates, so their owners do not pay council tax, but because they reach the threshold for small business rate relief, local authorities such as York are missing out on millions of pounds in revenue that they could get from such properties. It is therefore really important to categorise the properties and then look at how we use the categories.

I mentioned that in York we have 2,068 properties listed as Airbnbs; two weeks ago there were 1,999, so the number of properties that are going out to this new market is going up week by week. That is having a significant impact on York and York’s communities, so I trust that the Minister will not only support the amendment but engage in a wider discussion about what is happening to our communities, particularly in holiday destinations, so that we can ensure that, through this legislation, there is a suite of policies to ameliorate that market.

Marcus Jones (Conservative, Nuneaton)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley. The amendment and new clauses raise an issue on which the Committee touched when we discussed our proposal for a second homes council tax premium. As was said in that debate, we recognise the impact that a large and growing concentration of second homes and short-term holiday lets can have on communities.

The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale is charmingly persistent on this matter, not just for his own constituency, and I have some sympathy with his case. We know that in areas such as the Lake district, Cornwall, Devon and the Isle of Wight there are concerns about the impact of second homes and short-term holiday letting on the availability and affordability of homes for local people. I also know that the proliferation of short-term lets has affected our cities—we have heard the hon. Member for York Central talk about that, and I am aware that it is also an issue in Bath and London—which is why we are listening to local communities about the measures that they think will help to address the issues in their area.

Neighbourhood planning is an important tool in this context and, as I am sure we will discuss further, the Government wish to strengthen it. However, neighbourhood plans can already set policies concerning the sale and use of new properties in their area, including by limiting the sale of new homes for second homes and holiday lets. An example of this is in St Ives, where the neighbourhood plan, approved by local people, introduced a principal residence policy to prohibit the sale of new homes as second homes. Although the policy was challenged in the High Court, the court found in favour of St Ives and its policy. As such, I hope that the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale will agree that the changes he seeks to make with amendment 119 are already built into the neighbourhood planning system.

Rachael Maskell (Labour/Co-operative, York Central)

I want to highlight the fact that the issue is not just with new properties; it is predominantly existing properties that are brought forward. To put such a policy into the planning process, as the Minister proposes, will address only part of the problem— the future problem—and certainly will not stop the market because it will orientate completely to the existing housing stock.

Marcus Jones (Conservative, Nuneaton)

I completely understand where the hon. Member is coming from. Clearly, this is about not just new builds but the wider property market. I will address that point later, but let me say now that we are aware of the issue and are doing a significant amount of work to understand the problem further and to work through the possible solutions with communities.

It is important that proposed solutions help to address the issues while avoiding unintended consequences. In that regard, I have some concerns about new clauses 38 and 39, which were also tabled by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale. First, they risk increasing the burdens faced by local planning authorities throughout England by creating extra planning applications that they will need to decide. The issue affects different areas in different ways, so our view is that any solutions should provide tools that can adjust to local circumstances.

In addition, I am unsure why the proposal is that a change of ownership, rather than changing a property to a second home or a holiday rental, should trigger the requirement. That means that cases where the existing owner changes the property to a second home or a holiday rental would not be covered until the subsequent owner sought to continue that use. That adds a new test for local planning authorities to apply and monitor and adds complexity to the proposed use classes, in a way that could prove unhelpful.

As I have highlighted, the Government published a call for evidence on a short-term accommodation registration scheme on 29 June so that we can better understand the positive and negative impacts of holiday lets on local communities, and that consultation runs until 21 September. We want to hear from a wide range of stakeholders, including local authorities, in order to build a much-needed evidence base on the issues and develop proportionate responses. I hope the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale will be reassured—although I am not absolutely sure he will be—that we are taking the matter seriously and are taking onboard his concerns, and will continue to do so.

Emma Lewell-Buck (Labour, South Shields)

The Minister mentions a consultation that will end on 21 September. If it recommends putting what is being asked for into the Bill, will he come back and do that?

Marcus Jones (Conservative, Nuneaton)

For a number of days now, issues have been raised in Committee that it is right for us to reflect on. Clearly, 21 September coincides with the last day of this Committee’s considerations but, as the hon. Member knows, that is not the end of the process. I am not in a position to confirm what she asks for, but it is important that matters drawn to the Government’s attention in Committee are considered carefully. We will see what amendments are tabled on Report, by the Government and by Opposition parties. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale will withdraw his amendment.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

I call the charmingly persistent Tim Farron.

Tim Farron (Liberal Democrat, Westmorland and Lonsdale)

Thank you, Mr Paisley; that is very nice of you. I am also grateful to the Minister, but I think that my constituents and many other people in rural Britain, on hearing his reply, will consider this a case of the Government fiddling while communities such as mine die. The Minister deployed some interesting language, and perhaps we should change the name of this Committee to the increasing burdens Committee. Give us the flipping burdens! We want the burden of responsibility to save our communities; that is what we are asking for.

As I said, planning authorities, committees and departments need the resources to enforce the powers they already have. They also need the resources to enforce the new powers that I hope the Government will see the light over and grant. But it is worth addressing what the Minister said about what the Government are already doing because, to be clear, it will not touch the sides. I reckon the council tax premium will affect the wealthiest 5% of second home owners. It will not make one bit of difference to whether they carry on having a second home, particularly when they are allowed to rent their holiday cottage out for 70 days a year, which they do. They can then register as a holiday let small business. As a consequence, they do not pay council tax, and as a “small business” they do not pay business rates either.

In other words, some of the people who are just about clinging on in my communities—single parents living on the estates in Windermere, Milnthorpe, Kendal or Sedbergh—are subsidising the Mancunian barrister’s or London banker’s second home in Coniston. It is out-flipping-rageous, and the Government have the power to do something about it. Never mind having further inquiries and investigations. We know what the problem is and what the solutions are, and I am utterly frustrated that the Government will not accept it.

This is a test—a burden on the Government—of whether levelling up means anything in rural communities. Rural Britain, today and through the coming weeks, will hear whether the Government are up to that test. Many of the Minister’s right hon. and hon. Friends who represent constituencies like mine will be forced to make a big choice: will they take the Whip or will they stand for their communities? I will start by posing that test today and pressing this amendment to a Division.

Tim Farron (Liberal Democrat, Westmorland and Lonsdale)

I beg to move amendment 120, in clause 88, page 94, line 27, at end insert—

“(aa) policies (however expressed) limiting new housing development in a National Park or an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty to affordable housing;”.

This amendment would enable neighbourhood development plans to restrict new housing development in National Parks and AONBs to affordable housing.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 40—Local authorities to be permitted to require that new housing in National Parks and AONB is affordable—

“(1) Notwithstanding the National Planning Policy Framework, a local planning authority may mandate that any new housing in its area that is within—

(a) a National Park, or

(b) an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

is affordable.

(2) A local planning authority may define ‘affordable’ for the purposes of subsection (1).”

This new clause would enable local authorities to mandate that new housing under their jurisdiction and within a National Park or an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty is affordable, and to define “affordable” for that purpose.

Tim Farron (Liberal Democrat, Westmorland and Lonsdale)

We have just talked about what we do with existing housing stock and about seeking to make sure that it is retained and that we increase the amount that is available for permanent occupancy, for all the reasons I set out earlier. The amendment would tackle extreme situations, using some admittedly extreme measures, to ensure that new build also provides for the needs of local communities.

I want to stop for a moment to make it clear that we are not saying, “Only homes for locals.” We are delighted for anybody to come to Cumbria to become new locals and part of our community, to work and to contribute. We are proud of our diversity and of being a welcoming community, but let us ensure that the houses we build are affordable.

It is a pleasure to represent the Lake district and the Yorkshire dales, as well as the Arnside and Silverdale area of outstanding natural beauty, which has many of the features, including some of the planning powers, of a national park. Any property that goes on the market in those areas will be snapped up within seconds for a premium price. That includes new properties that are potentially built for local occupancy. It is easy to get around the occupancy clauses: people can buy the properties and then turn them into holiday lets quite quickly or move away from the area and use them as second homes, so the occupancy clauses are no protection.

The amendment would give planning authorities in national parks, which face extreme circumstances, radical powers that they can use, in some circumstances, for a period of time. We are not saying that they have to use them, but the powers would be there and available to them. If the Lake district or the Yorkshire dales wished to say, as I am sure they would if they were given these powers, that they would permit only developments that were genuinely affordable, which would normally mean social rented or shared ownership properties, they would be able to enforce that.

The experience in the not-too-distant past, when national park planning authorities had greater powers in practice than they do today, was that such provisions worked. There is a wrong view, which I think is held by some in this place, that the more restrictions there are, the less development we get. That is baloney. Practice proves that that is not true. If authorities are crystal clear to developers, housing associations and others that this is what they will get, and no more, people will either come forward or they will not.

I can call on experience in places such as Grasmere; Ambleside, where the Methodist and Anglican churches worked together to provide new affordable housing with the support of the national park; Windermere, where a similar thing happened; Coniston; and Hawkshead. The communities there were the diametric opposite to nimbys: they actively went out to find land to develop, which people gave up cheaply; they worked and fundraised to make sure things happened; and they left properties in their wills to make sure that collaborations could happen and we could build affordable houses. One reason why that was possible was that people potentially leaving a bequest knew that they could trust the national parks to ensure that their property would end up being redeveloped in an affordable way for a local family, which also meant that developers were clear that that was all that would be on the table. The evidence from 20 years’ experience is that if we are more restrictive, clearer and more directive, we will get the homes that we need for communities such as mine.

The simple fact is that in many parts of the country—not just Cumbria but especially there—if we build it, someone will buy it. By not giving local communities that power, we are simply building for demand, not for need. We can carry on building for demand, but as a result, we will lose our workforce and there will be no one to care for the older people in our community, of whom there are many, in their need. The economy will dissolve because of that lack of workforce, and communities will die.

We need to ensure that we build the houses so that they are there and people can afford them, and that affordable means affordable. We need to ensure that the national parks can enforce those criteria for a period of time, so that we can solve this problem through what we do with our new builds, as we should be doing with the properties that already exist.

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I thank the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale for tabling these amendments, the intention behind which we very much sympathise with. We know that excessive rates of second home ownership in rural and coastal areas are having a direct impact on the affordability, and therefore availability, of local homes, particularly for local first-time buyers. Correspondingly, we know that the marked growth in short-term and holiday lets in such areas is having a direct impact on the affordability and availability of homes for local people not just to buy but, as he said in relation to the previous group of amendments, to rent.

Research from CPRE, the countryside charity, makes it clear that our rural housing supply is disappearing and social housing waiting lists in rural areas are lengthening year on year. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is crucial that more is done to ensure that national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty have not just more affordable homes but—I make the distinction—more genuinely affordable homes.

If I am honest, however, I am concerned about the implications of the blanket nature of the restrictions provided for by these proposals. Although there is no doubt in my mind that the provision of genuinely affordable homes to buy and rent must be the priority in such areas, I worry slightly about the potential for unintended consequences, such as ruling out the provision of housing for general demand, which might be needed in some parts of the country to sustain the life of communities.

That said, I appreciate that these proposals are premised on giving communities discretion as to whether they use these powers, and I recognise and support the point that the hon. Gentleman is making with them. I hope the Government respond constructively.

Rachael Maskell (Labour/Co-operative, York Central)

I, too, am sympathetic to these proposals, but I want to point out an area of unforeseen consequence. My constituency is not an area of outstanding natural beauty—although I would argue that it is—or a national park, but we sit just beneath the Howardian hills, and the dales and moors are not far away. If these blanket proposals and bans are orientated to those areas, the challenge is that they could heat up the Airbnb market even faster, particularly in somewhere such as York.

On the application process for a world heritage site, it would seem sensible for a world heritage site to be included in the criteria. I would compare the measure with a residential parking scheme: as we know, if we restrict parking on one street, people tend to park on the next street along, and we just build out and out. That may happen if we do not give flexibilities and opportunities to all areas.

Although I am really sympathetic to the sentiment behind these proposals and to the powers they would give, the scope should be broadened to enable all authorities to have the opportunity to control the housing and the lease of housing within their governance.

Marcus Jones (Conservative, Nuneaton)

Although I entirely understand the desire of the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale for more affordable housing, particularly in national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty, I fear that the approach he advocates would be counterproductive.

Clause 88 sets out what communities can address in their neighbourhood development plans. It already allows communities to include policies on the provision of affordable housing in their area, taking into account local circumstances. We recognise that delivering affordable housing in national parks and AONBs can be a challenge. To help address that paragraph 78 of the national planning policy framework includes a specific rural exemptions sites policy. It allows affordable housing to be delivered on sites that would not otherwise be developed to meet specific local housing need, and the majority of that housing will be required to remain permanently available to those with a local connection. In addition, in 2021 we published planning practice guidance to help bring forward more of those sites in the future.

Hon. Members will be aware that authorities in designated rural areas can set policies that contain a lower development threshold, above which affordable housing can be sought. That threshold can be between one and five units, compared to a threshold of 10 units in other areas. We will be consulting on how the small sites threshold should work in rural areas under the infrastructure levy.

New clause 40 would enable planning authorities for national parks and AONBs to mandate that new housing under their jurisdiction is affordable and to define “affordable” for that purpose. Authorities are already empowered to set policies in their local plans that require developers to deliver a defined amount of affordable housing on market housing sites, unless exemptions apply. These policies are able to take into account local circumstances in setting the appropriate minimum amount of affordable housing to be delivered, which will vary across the country.

Under the infrastructure levy, we will introduce a new “right to require” through regulations, by which authorities can require a certain proportion of the levy to be delivered as on-site affordable housing. That will be in addition to the rural exemptions sites, which I have already outlined. The revenue from market housing is vital for delivering affordable housing and other vital infrastructure, with over 24,000 affordable homes being delivered through developer contributions in 2020-21. As we will discuss, the new infrastructure levy has been designed to deliver as much on-site affordable housing as at present, if not more. Requiring only affordable housing could therefore reduce the amount of affordable housing obtained in these areas by making market development unable to proceed at all. Ultimately, that would make the affordability challenges in those areas worse rather than better. As such, although the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale are valid and the Government are taking them seriously in our design for the infrastructure levy, I hope he will agree to withdraw his amendment.

Tim Farron (Liberal Democrat, Westmorland and Lonsdale)

Just to be clear, the wording of the amendment means that it would enable national parks to do these things, and they can choose not to if they wish. If we are about respecting local communities, then what we do is about giving people power, not telling them what they must or must not do. For the Government to not support what I am proposing is effectively removing that choice from them.

I hear what people say about the impact on neighbouring communities. It is worth bearing in mind that national parks are—rightly or wrongly—made up of people from a whole range of different backgrounds. The people who are placed on national parks include those appointed by a Secretary of State, people from parish councils within the national park, and the principal authorities that make up that national park, which also cover areas that are not in the national park. At the moment, most of the area that Cumbria County Council covers is not a national park. It includes larger towns and, indeed, one city within Cumbria, which are not in the national park. Likewise, the district councils also have representatives, and not one of those district councils is majority national park in terms of population, so there is that understanding of the impact beyond the boundaries of a national park.

I understand what the Minister says about the importance of the revenue raised by market housing, but the evidence we see with our own eyes in communities like mine is that when communities can bank on new developments being affordable, we suddenly see a huge reduction in build costs, because landowners will give up land for significantly less than they would have done otherwise. Build costs reduce, and the whole community tries to find ways to achieve things. It is very similar to what has happened in my area with rural broadband—communities can deliver broadband much more cheaply than BT because, as it turns out, landowners are quite happy to allow a bunch of people to dig trenches as part of a community effort. People will do that for nothing, whereas they would not do that for a commercial enterprise. So that does not undermine the case at all.

The evidence I have brought before the Committee—the Rural Services Network stating and showing evidence that, on the Government’s own metrics, rural England is more in need of levelling up than any of the geographical regions of England, even the poorest of them—tells us that we have to do something to tackle the need. This amendment is one way in which that could be done. I understand, however, and was interested in, some of the things that the Minister said, so I will not press it to a vote at the moment. I would love to see further action from the Government to address the issue in the coming weeks. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Rachael Maskell (Labour/Co-operative, York Central)

I beg to move amendment 131, in clause 88, page 94, line 27, at end insert—

“(ab) policies (however expressed) that can require that some or all housing development sites within the neighbourhood plan area are used exclusively for the delivery of affordable housing, as determined in the neighbourhood plan;”.

This amendment would specifically provide for neighbourhood development plans to specify that housing development must deliver affordable housing.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 41—Local authorities to be permitted to require that new housing is affordable—

“(1) Notwithstanding the National Planning Policy Framework, a local planning authority may mandate that any new housing in its area is affordable.

(2) A local planning authority may define ‘affordable’ for the purposes of subsection (1).”

This new clause would enable local authorities to mandate that new housing under their jurisdiction is affordable, and to define “affordable” for that purpose.

Rachael Maskell (Labour/Co-operative, York Central)

I will be brief, Mr Paisley. We have just been talking about affordability, and I am sure that the Minister is listening carefully to our considerations and the different challenges we face across our communities. It is so important to be able to develop good, sustainable communities in the future. The amendment simply seeks to take that to the next level and enable neighbourhood planning processes to ensure that 100% affordability is built in to include social development, which is so important to building sustainable communities. We clearly do not see that at the moment. My amendment therefore speaks for itself.

New clause 41 would get there by a different route, so I am supportive of it, because I am trying to find a solution to the issue of affordability, which so many of our constituencies struggle with at the moment. I will say no more on that, but I trust that the Minister has heard and will respond appropriately.

Marcus Jones (Conservative, Nuneaton)

I understand that the hon. Member wants to see more affordable housing delivered, but I do not agree that the amendment is necessary to achieve that objective. The Government remain committed to neighbourhood planning, and the reforms in the Bill will ensure that neighbourhood plans continue to play an important role in the reformed planning system.

The clause sets out what communities can address in their neighbourhood development plans. It already allows communities to include policies on the provision of affordable housing in their area, taking into account local circumstances. New clause 41 seeks to enable local authorities to mandate that new housing under their jurisdiction is affordable, and to define “affordable” for that purpose. I entirely understand the desire for more affordable housing, but the approach that is advocated through the new clause would be somewhat counter-productive.

Local authorities are already empowered to set policies in their local plans that require developers to deliver a defined amount of affordable housing on market housing sites, unless exceptions apply. Such policies are able to take into account local circumstances in setting the appropriate minimum amount of affordable housing to be delivered, which will vary across the country. Under the infrastructure levy, we will introduce a new right to require in regulations, through which local authorities can require a certain proportion of the levy to be delivered as on-site affordable housing.

The revenue from market housing is, as I said, vital to delivering affordable housing, and we have already provided 24,000 affordable homes through developer contributions during 2021. In addition, the new infrastructure levy will help to deliver more on-site affordable housing than at present. I hope that, with those reassurances, the hon. Member will withdraw the amendment.

Rachael Maskell (Labour/Co-operative, York Central)

I listened intently to what the Minister said. It does not fully satisfy me or answer the inquiry that I am making in the amendment, because he simplifies the ability to achieve the objective, which we know is not happening at the moment with the provisions that are in place.

I will withdraw my amendment today. However, I trust that we can perhaps look at this matter at a later stage of the Bill, in order to achieve the objective I am seeking. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Rachael Maskell (Labour/Co-operative, York Central)

I beg to move amendment 132, in clause 88, page 95, line 4, at end insert—

“(e) in areas of historical, cultural or environmental sensitivity, requirements intended to ensure that development is in keeping with the proximal environment.”

This amendment would enable neighbourhood plans to require that development in areas of historical, cultural or environmental sensitivity is in keeping with the surrounding environment.

I will again be brief, because my amendment is self-explanatory. In an area such as York, the development of part of the city can impact on the whole city. As I have previously mentioned, we are in an application at the moment for the tentative list of world heritage sites. Therefore, we want to ensure that the space in our city is built sensitively to best reflect our environment. That does not mean that it has to be identikit, just that we need to look at how we can build something that respects the historical, cultural and environmental sensitivities of an area such as York. We have a lot of development happening in York and many plans coming forward simply do not fulfil those criteria. I have spoken to Historic England and to archaeologists in the city, and they have deep concerns about the effect that new build could have, including detracting from our city’s incredible assets.

The amendment would also apply to the natural environment, ensuring that blend is built in with that. It does not mean that something new and vibrant cannot be developed, but it means that the sensitivities are considered. As a city, we are certainly interested, as I am sure many other places are, in how we can ensure that developers build according not just to their own desire, but to address the local sensitivities of an area.

Marcus Jones (Conservative, Nuneaton)

I thank the hon. Member for York Central for tabling the amendment. I understand that she wants to ensure that communities can protect their cherished local environments from harmful development. However, I do not agree that the amendment is necessary.

Under clause 88, communities will already be able to include policies that place requirements on new development to prevent it from harming sensitive areas. Furthermore, throughout the Bill we are already introducing measures to strengthen protections for our historic and natural environments, such as extending the protections for certain designated heritage sites, including a power to issue temporary stop notices, and moving to an outcomes-based approach in environmental assessment. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Member will withdraw her amendment.

Rachael Maskell (Labour/Co-operative, York Central)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Rachael Maskell (Labour/Co-operative, York Central)

I beg to move amendment 133, in clause 88, page 95, line 9, after “contribute” insert

“to the mitigation of flooding and drought and”.

This amendment would require neighbourhood development plans to be designed to secure that the development and use of land in the neighbourhood area contribute to flood and drought mitigation.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 2, in clause 88, page 95, line 9, after “contribute” insert

“to the mitigation of flooding and”.

This amendment would require neighbourhood development plans to be designed to secure that the development and use of land in the neighbourhood area contribute to flood mitigation.

Rachael Maskell (Labour/Co-operative, York Central)

I am indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) for tabling many of these new clauses in order to address the issue of flooding. However, I will first turn to amendment 133, which I tabled. At the time I tabled it, nobody could have predicted the day on which we would debate it, when temperatures are soaring to the highest the country has ever seen. Nevertheless, that highlights the importance of addressing the issue of drought.

Drought is a serious consideration for the Environment Agency, and it is really important that we are prepared for it. At the moment, we are seeing that, as a country, we are clearly not prepared. With the globe heating up, we know that this is the future, unless there is a serious reorientation around wider policy planning.

We are hearing loud and clear the importance of addressing issues of drought—looking at water supply and soil health, which is vital, and at construction. Planning has a massive impact on flooding as well as on droughts, so it is important that we look at how we move that forward.

It is also important that we look at mitigation of flood risk, which is addressed in amendment 2 and will lead us to the specifics of the new clauses. Scientists are saying today that we are now reaching the point where mitigation may not be possible, and that we will have to consider adaptation, so we are arriving at a very serious juncture in how we prevent, and protect our planet from, further degradation.

I will turn to the new clauses. Ironically, I represent a place that also floods—everything mentioned in the Bill happens in York. We have the ludicrous situation of new developments being built on floodplains without the resilience required to prevent flooding. It is important that we consider three core areas: property flood resilience, flood mitigation and robust mechanisms for waste management in connection with flooding.

Since the Boxing day floods of 2015, I have spent six and a half years building and fighting for resilience in my constituency and in our city. Exorbitant sums of money—£45 million and £38 million respectively—have been spent on flood defences and the Foss barrier. However, the Environment Agency warns that resilience in our city will hold for 17 years before the risk comes again, so there is a short period in which to bring the adaptations to the upper catchment and build the long-term resilience we need.

Although property-level resilience has been put in place, we must understand that new risks are coming and that mitigation is essential. We need to look at how to slow the flow, restore peat, and plant sphagnum moss and other planting programmes to enrich soils so that they can hold greater quantities of water upstream and water comes downstream more slowly. When flooding occurs and sewage enters people’s properties, however, they need extensive decontamination processes, and it can take months to clear and restore buildings, so building resilience is important.

The way in which resilience funding works is an issue, because funding comes from different places. Building back better, which the new clauses call for, is essential, but it is also important that we consider long-term community solutions. One property could take the approach of keeping water out, whereas another could enable flooding but have a quick clear-up. Co-ordination across the board, so that communities are integrated and work together, will be important.

I will address new clause 3. Flood Re was introduced in 2016. That welcome scheme has yielded a massive dividend in my constituency, but there are exemptions, including businesses, leasehold properties and properties built after 2009. Many properties built after 2009 still flood, including in my constituency, so the scheme has not had the impact it was expected to have in deterring the building of non-flood-resilient properties. We must reset the clock to enable such opportunities, including by ensuring that prevention is built into buildings.

Let me turn to new clause 4. I chair the all-party parliamentary group on flood prevention, and when we look at building future resilience, mitigation certification and accreditation schemes have very much been a part of our considerations. We must ensure that the people building resilience into properties are properly accredited. In 2015 and subsequent floods, people came along and said that they would build resilience into properties, but they did not have the qualifications or knowledge to do so. Unfortunately, they did not build in resilience, and people got their fingers burned.

For portable appliance testing, we expect electricians to have the relevant qualifications, and it is essential that, when it comes to flooding, we have people who are flood prevention or resilience certified in order to protect the public. Often, it is public money that is spent on resilience, so it is important that we protect the public purse and ensure that money is spent appropriately. I therefore support the new clause. We are also thinking about the certification of property, because people need to know what they are buying and be sure of its security. This is about maintaining the measures that are put in place and ensuring that resilience is used to its maximum effect.

I support the other new clauses in the group. New clause 6 would address the gaps, so that properties—particularly leasehold properties—are not exempt. It is important because it would address the small and medium-sized enterprise market. There has been a lot of discussion about that in the insurance sector through the Association of British Insurers, which set up the British Insurance Brokers’ Association scheme. Although that has improved the situation, it does not address the risk share approach that Flood Re takes, which is important for the residential community. I know that small businesses are looking at that as a way through. If SME properties are in the next tranche to be covered by the flood reinsurance scheme, that would help the industry as well as small businesses. I therefore hope the Minister will look carefully at the new clause.

New clause 7 is about building back better—building back with resilience. That is essential, but, as I said, the money does not always work. First, there is money from Government grants—perhaps under the Bellwin scheme—and DEFRA has now increased its resilience grants to £10,000, so we are talking about significant Government funding. On top of that, there is the money that comes in from the insurance companies and the Environment Agency’s community assessed schemes. That money is worked out separately and is not co-ordinated. As a result, there is not necessarily an opportunity to build greater resilience into structures. Co-ordination could protect a micro-community, as opposed to just one or two properties. Therefore, we should look at the modelling that is done on bringing insurance money and Government money together. That could have a significant impact and could mean that the Government pound stretches much further. That is obviously really important for building resilience.

I will end my comments there, but I trust that the Government will support the amendments and new clauses, which are important for communities that experience flooding.

Tim Farron (Liberal Democrat, Westmorland and Lonsdale)

I am happy to support this group of amendments and new clauses. Flood resilience is of huge importance. We are dealing with extreme weather—today is an example, but there are other days that are extreme in a different way. In my part of Cumbria, in the past 18 years we have had two storms deemed to be one-in-100-year events, and a third that was deemed to be a one-in-200-year event. That does not add up, does it? It is because our weather and our climate are changing. We need to mitigate, prepare and build to protect homes, families and businesses.

Most recently, in 2015 Storm Desmond devastated the town of Kendal as well as many parts of Burneside, Staveley and other communities. The human and economic consequences are vast, and vastly greater than spending money up front to do the right thing in the first place. It is very wise to build into the Bill powers to ensure that neighbourhood development plans and planning controls can bring on board very powerful bodies that otherwise might seek to shirk their responsibility to ensure people are protected. I am thinking in particular of the water companies, which made nearly £3 billion in profit last year, and the extent to which they are compelled to ensure their drainage and other facilities can cope with new development, not just in that small parcel of land but as regards the impact on the wider community.

There is also the work with farmers, who are desperate to be part of the solution, to make sure we retain water in the uplands so that we slow the flow and minimise the impact on communities. The River Kent is one of the fastest-flowing rivers in the country and only 20 miles or so long from source to sea. When floods come they are dramatic, but the water can be down to quite a reasonable level within 24 or 48 hours. It therefore stands to reason that if we can hold back some of that water in the uplands by investing there and supporting farmers to do that, we can save millions of pounds and thousands of people from the terrible experience of being dramatically flooded.

It is about making sure we build in those things in the first instance. As we speak, we are building flood resilience networks in Kendal: both what can be seen by the river in the town and what cannot be seen up in the hills, where we are seeking to retain the water by tree planting, bunding and other work to slow the flow. We should be doing that sort of stuff in advance, before communities get devastated, as happened to mine. That is why the amendments are important. They are about making sure we build resiliently for the future so that other families do not have to go through what families in my community did in December 2015, with the devastation of soggy, sodden Christmas presents and wrecked Christmas trees on the sides of streets in the estates and people utterly devastated by what they had experienced, unable to get back into their homes for six months or more. Surely it is possible for us to prevent these things. With the right powers and provisions, we can.

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I rise to strongly support this important group of amendments, and I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle and for York Central on proposing them. It is right that my hon. Friends seek to amend the Bill to ensure that planning rules on flood prevention and mitigation are strengthened and that the planning system responds better to the challenges associated with drought. As has been said, the amendments would not only ensure that we enhance the resilience to flooding of communities across England, but reform how the insurance and reinsurance markets operate in terms of data accuracy and how premiums take into account mitigations and defences, as well as beneficially extending reinsurance to small and medium-sized enterprises.

Although I am more than happy to acknowledge the positive steps taken by the Government on flood prevention and mitigation in recent years, such as the publication of the adaptation communication 18 months ago and the investment allocated to improving flood defences up to 2027, it is clear that there has been an absence of cross-departmental working when it comes to addressing the issue explicitly in the Bill. When the adaptation communication was published in 2020, it promised that climate mitigation would be integrated across Government Departments, including, most importantly in this case, infrastructure and the built environment. It is therefore problematic that the Bill lacks any explicit reference to flood mitigation and, indeed, references the term “flood” only once in relation to what charging authorities may spend the proposed infrastructure levy on. It is laudable that mitigating and responding to climate change has been included in the Bill as a new requirement for development plans and spatial development strategies. However, the Bill as a whole does nowhere near enough to address the specific issue of the susceptibility to flooding experienced by so many of our communities.

The risk and frequency of flooding will only increase as global temperatures rise and its effects, as hon. Members will know, can be devastating, not only in terms of its impact on people’s lives but on businesses and the economy. How can we plan, for example, to respond to the increased frequency and potency of flooding events when surface water flood hazard maps for the UK have not been improved upon since 2013? They urgently need updating. Indeed, that issue speaks to a wider concern, which is the dearth of accurate, up-to-date and publicly available data about flood prevention and risk. If accepted, new clause 3 would ensure that data, so that property owners could better plan for surface water flooding in areas at risk and, importantly, insurers could more accurately assess risk and therefore insurance premiums. There is widespread support in the sector for the amendments for that very reason.

When it comes to insurance, the introduction of a certification and accreditation system for flood prevention and mitigation improvements, which new FCA rules would ensure were taken into account in setting rates, is an entirely sensible reform that should help lower premiums. I hope the Government will consider accepting new clauses 4 and 5 on that basis.

On reinsurance, although the Flood Re scheme has always been designed to cover residential properties, small businesses are also struggling to get insurance in high flood risk areas. There is no equivalent scheme to help small and medium-sized enterprises access insurance, and the consequences of that can be severe. As well as their not being able to claim for losses if there is a flood, it can create difficulties in getting loans, managing cash flow, acquiring property and entering into contracts. New clause 6 would address that eligibility issue. Again, it is an entirely sensible proposal. Building standards and setting consistent approaches to flood resilience and defences across local authorities cannot be a matter for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs alone; it requires a level of co-ordination and cross-Government working.

New clause 2 simply requires the Government to set minimum standards for flood resilience, flood mitigation and flood waste management and building regulations. Again, that is an entirely sensible measure that the Government should have no problem accepting. I hope the Minister will consider this group of amendments carefully. If he will not accept them today, as I suspect, will he at least use the summer to reflect on whether the Government can introduce amendments of their own that achieve the same ends? More generally, could he consider what more the Bill could do to strengthen flood prevention and mitigation rules? The absence of any concrete proposals in the Bill on these important matters is a deficiency.

Marcus Jones (Conservative, Nuneaton)

I fully understand why flooding is a matter of particular importance to the hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle and for York Central, as well as other hon. Members, given the flood risk in many constituencies and the devastation caused by flooding. It should concern us all across the House. Although they are linked by that concern, it makes sense to deal with each of the amendments in turn rather than all together.

I take amendments 2 and 133 first: since 2009, climate change adaptation and mitigation has been a key part of the planning system. The management and mitigation of flood and drought risks is a central component of that. We are already strengthening that through the Bill. Clause 88 amends existing legislation to put beyond doubt that neighbourhood planning groups should consider climate change adaptation and mitigation.

Furthermore, to support communities, in 2020 the Centre for Sustainable Energy published a guide to policy writing and community engagement for low-carbon neighbourhood plans, which covers flood and drought risk policy as well as mitigation techniques and infra-structure that they might wish to consider in their plans. Specific reference to flooding and drought in that provision would not strengthen the commitment but might unintentionally undermine focus on other aspects of climate change adaptation and mitigation. Our view, therefore, remains that the duty is most effective when it takes all the causes and effects of climate change together.

On new clause 2, managing flood risk is a Government priority. We are investing £5.2 billion to better protect 336,000 properties, alongside a range of actions to increase resilience to flood risk. Statutory guidance on the building regulations already promotes the use of flood resilient and resistant construction in flood prone areas. However, the building regulations system does not deal with the whole interconnected system of responsibility for managing flood risk. Drainage systems for new developments are already required to be built to a standard that minimises flooding. Those duties sit outside the building regulations system.

Furthermore, the national planning policy framework already makes it clear that inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided. Where necessary, there is an expectation that a development should be made safe for its lifetime without increasing flood risk elsewhere. In combination, I hope hon. Members will agree that the effect of the new clause is already provided for in wider systems in place for flood mitigation and protection.

Similarly, on new clause 3, we agree that communities should have access to the information they need to manage and prepare for their level of flood risk. That is why the Environment Agency publishes flood risk data and maps for England. Lead local flood authorities are also already required to have a strategy for managing flood risks in their area, which must include an assessment of local flood risk. All that information is already openly available to both insurers and householders. As such, I hope that hon. Members will agree that new clause 3 would not add to the existing provision of data.

Again, I hope the Committee will not be surprised that we agree with the intention behind new clauses 4 and 5. That is why, in July 2021, we committed to publishing a property flood resilience road map by the end of 2022 to ensure that all relevant bodies are playing their part, and that consumers have assurance about the quality of products and their installation.

The road map will set a national, strategic policy framework for property flood resilience and set out our—and the industry’s—approach to addressing the barriers to property flood resilience uptake. That includes exploring the best approach to ensure that property flood resilience professionals undertake work that meets industry standards, and establishing mechanisms to collect the evidence insurers need to recognise property flood resilience and factor it into their premiums.

As I have already said, we are clear that inappropriate new development in floodplains should be avoided, and must be made safe and resilient where they have to occur, without increasing flooding risks elsewhere. That is why Flood Re does not extend to homes built after 2009. Similarly, Flood Re was designed to provide available and affordable insurance for households. It does not cover businesses.

Business insurance operates differently to household insurance; it is often more bespoke, based on the individual nature of the business. In addition, Flood Re is funded via a levy on household insurers. Expanding its scope to cover businesses would require a new levy on businesses, which could result in businesses and therefore customers across the country subsidising profit-making organisations located near rivers or the coast, often to their advantage. That is one of the delicate issues that must be considered. Although it is undoubtedly an issue for some, there is no evidence of a systematic problem in accessing insurance for businesses with high flood risks. For businesses that experience problems, a number of innovative products are being offered to businesses by insurers.

Finally, on new clause 7, we have made important changes to the Flood Re scheme, helping to drive the uptake of property flood resilience. Regulations came into force in April that allow Flood Re to pay claims from insurers who pass flood risk on to the scheme. That includes an amount of “resilient repair”, up to a value of £10,000 over and above the cost of like-for-like repairs, to enable homeowners to return to their homes more quickly following a flood and to reduce the cost of future claims.

Build back better has deliberately been introduced on a voluntary basis. We aim to drive a cultural shift across the insurance market, raising awareness and demand for property flood resilience and helping to capture evidence on the benefits of property flood resilience to support future changes. Hon. Members may also be aware that customers of insurers covering more than 50% of the market are already able to benefit from Build Back Better. We continue to encourage more household insurers to participate in the scheme. In light of those assurances and explanations, I hope that hon. Members will be willing to withdraw the amendments.

Rachael Maskell (Labour/Co-operative, York Central)

I am grateful for the debate. I thank the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale for highlighting the importance of the upper catchment management work, which is so necessary for mapping what will happen across other communities, and the Environment Agency’s commitment and the work it is doing in that arena.

My hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich hit the nail on the head when he talked about the importance of cross-governmental working, which is clearly not at an optimum at the moment when addressing issues around flooding. While the Minister has talked through a number of steps the Government are taking, I refer him back to the 2016 national flood resilience strategy, which highlighted the importance of co-ordination across Government and of ensuring that resilience was built into the system. That is not happening at the moment. As much as policy may aspire to that, it has further to go. The amendments are therefore still relevant as the Bill does not meet the requirements of the communities that currently flood, and those that will flood in the future as we see weather patterns change and risk increase.

I am not planning to press the amendment to a vote, but I hope the Government will reflect on it, and on my amendment about drought, because this is a significant and serious issue. Right now we recognise that as we move forward we need to build in how we have sufficient water supply. That will be increasingly important. I reserve the right to bring the issue back up on Report, and to give the opportunity to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle to table her amendments too. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I beg to move amendment 110, clause 88, page 95, line 17, at end insert—

“(5) After subsection (4) insert—

‘(4A) A neighbourhood development plan which is in effect on the day on which section 88 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 comes into force may remain in effect contrary to the provisions of that section no longer than until the end of the period of five years beginning on the day on which that section comes into force.’”

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause stand part.

Clause 89 stand part.

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

Statutory neighbourhood plans became part of the system in 2011 when they were introduced under the Localism Act 2011 as a formal part of the development framework. The concept of neighbourhood planning is far from problem free, but we support it in principle as an important means of giving communities a greater say in where future development takes place, how it is designed and what infrastructure is provided with it.

To the extent that it enables communities better to shape development in any given area, neighbourhood planning can—although it is by no means always the case—increase public engagement, reduce the number of objections to planning applications and boost housing supply over and above local authority targets. As the Minister noted previously, neighbourhood plans can also provide communities with an important tool to mitigate the impact of acute housing pressures in their localities—for example, on the issue of excessive rates of second-home ownership and the marked growth of short-term and holiday lets that we have considered a number of times.

Clause 88 is a straightforward one in that it merely confirms the statutory role of neighbourhood planning and sets out a list of the policies and requirements that a neighbourhood plan may include. We welcome that confirmation and clarification, as well as the sensible new requirement set out in proposed new subsection (2B) for the qualifying body to design its neighbourhood plan, so far as it considers it appropriate, in such a way that it contributes to the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change.

I wish to raise two specific issues with the Minister, one that relates directly to the implications of the clause for existing neighbourhood plans and another that relates to the future of neighbourhood planning more widely. The first issue concerns potential conflict between a neighbourhood plan and a national development management policy. As the Minister would expect given the arguments we have set out in previous debates, we take issue with proposed new subsection (2C)(b) under clause 88, which stipulates that a neighbourhood plan cannot be inconsistent with any NDMP. However, given that I have set out the Opposition’s reasoning on that issue in considerable detail in relation to both clause 83 and schedule 7, and proposed new paragraphs 15(c) and 15(ca), I do not intend—the Minister will be relieved to hear—to rehearse our arguments once again in the specific context of neighbourhood plans. I do want to know what will happen in the case of any one of the 1,061 neighbourhood plans, which have already been approved via referendum, that turn out not to be consistent with an NDMP published in the future.

Amendment 110 probes the Government on that scenario by suggesting that it would be sensible to insert a new subsection into clause 88, making it clear that a neighbourhood development plan that is in effect on the day on which that section of the Act comes into force has a grace period of five years to be brought into conformity with the relevant national development management policy. Given the effort that goes into producing and securing approval for a neighbourhood plan, we believe that a grace period of that length is entirely reasonable. I look forward to the Minister rising to say that he will accept the amendment—I live in hope—but if he will not, I ask him to reassure us regarding what will happen in cases where existing neighbourhood plans come into conflict with future NDMPs.

My second issue relates to the take-up of neighbourhood plans. As we discussed during the debate on new neighbourhood priority statements, all the evidence suggests that the vast majority of neighbourhood plans made to date have emanated from more affluent parts of the country, where people have the time and resources to prepare and implement the plans, rather than from less affluent areas and more complex urban environments. The Government accept that that is a problem and clearly believe that neighbourhood priority statements are a means of addressing it, but in our view those statements cannot be the only means of doing so. More could and should be done outside the legislative process to expand and support community involvement in planning decisions: for example, the Government could strengthen and expand the neighbourhood planning support programme.

We also believe that the objective of boosting the take-up of neighbourhood plans in deprived and urban areas should be included in the Bill. New clause 35 would achieve that by inserting into the Bill a requirement that the Secretary of State

“prepare and publish an annual report on the uptake of neighbourhood development plans”,

including what steps the Government are taking to increase uptake in those areas where neighbourhood plans are rarely to be found at present. It is not an onerous requirement by any means, and is fully in line with Government thinking on this important matter, so I look forward to the Minister telling me he can accept it without reservation.

Marcus Jones (Conservative, Nuneaton)

I understand that the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich is keen to ensure that existing neighbourhood plans continue to be recognised in the reformed system, but I have to disappoint him by saying that I do not consider the amendments to be necessary. Clause 195 gives the Secretary of State the power to set out transitional and saving provision in regulations. The Government’s intention is to use those powers to limit disruption for communities preparing a neighbourhood plan under the current rules, and to ensure that they continue to have a role in decision making in the new system. We have listened to what Members have said about potential transitional arrangements, and we will in due course set out details of how we intend to transition to the new system of neighbourhood plans.

I fully agree with the hon. Member that more can be done to increase the uptake of neighbourhood planning in urban and deprived areas, but I do not agree that the amendment is necessary to achieve that goal. The Government are already taking action to increase uptake in such areas. New section 15K of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, inserted by schedule 7, introduces neighbourhood priority statements, which will provide communities with a simpler and more accessible way to participate in neighbourhood planning. The new neighbourhood planning tool will be particularly beneficial for communities in urban and more deprived areas that often do not have the capacity to prepare a full neighbourhood plan. In addition, we are running a pilot whereby we are able to provide additional funding to a select number of local authorities in under-represented areas to enable them to provide more help to neighbourhood planning groups in getting a neighbourhood plan in place.

I hope that with those reassurances, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich will feel comfortable withdrawing his amendments.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

Mr Pennycook, are you going to continue to live in hope?

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I will continue to live in hope—we may get there one day. I am grateful for the Minister’s response; I noted carefully what he said about transitional arrangements, and I think I understood it. However, if he will allow me, I will perhaps at come back to him a later date to seek further clarification on precisely how an existing approved neighbourhood plan could be brought into line with future NDMPs, because there remains a slight concern about the implications.

On take-up, I am disappointed, as the Minister would expect. He will not accept what is, as I said, not a particularly onerous requirement to produce an annual report that sets out progress towards the objective. However, I hear what he said about pilots, and I am very interested to see the work that they produce. The key point, which I think he accepts, is that neighbourhood priority statements for less affluent and complex urban environments cannot be the only means of driving uptake. To drive uptake, we must do much more in a variety of areas. However, he has partly reassured me, and on that basis I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 90 - Requirement to assist with certain plan making

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I beg to move amendment 104, in clause 90, page 96, line 15, leave out “public”.

This amendment, together with Amendments 105 to 108, would enable plan making authorities to require a prescribed private body to assist the authority in relation to the preparation or revision of a relevant plan by the authority.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 105, in clause 90, page 96, line 18, leave out “public”.

See explanatory statement to Amendment 104.

Amendment 106, in clause 90, page 96, line 23, leave out “public”.

See explanatory statement to Amendment 104.

Amendment 107, in clause 90, page 97, line 4, leave out “public”.

See explanatory statement to Amendment 104.

Amendment 108, in clause 90, page 97, line 5, leave out

“and certain of whose functions are of a public nature”.

See explanatory statement to Amendment 104.

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

Clause 90 inserts new section 39A into the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, setting out a requirement on specific bodies to assist in the plan-making and plan-revising process. The explanatory notes to the Bill make clear that the clause is intended to support the more effective gathering of the information required for local planning authorities that produce local, strategic, supplementary and other forms of plans.

It appears to us that the clause is the Government’s answer to the question of how to sustain engagement and co-operation between plan-making authorities and relevant bodies after the removal of the duty to co-operate, which is an issue that we debated in relation to schedule 7. However, it is not at all clear how the clause interacts with the Government’s stated intention to introduce a “more flexible alignment test” in planning policy. I would be grateful—again, we have touched on the issue—if the Minister could set out in more detail precisely how the clause and that forthcoming alignment test will ensure that there is sufficient engagement and input in the plan-making process on the part of those bodies that are important contributors to the process of delivering infrastructure at local or strategic levels.

That question aside, we welcome the new duties that the clause places on infrastructure providers to engage with the production of local plans, which is an entirely sensible measure. However, we question why the prescribed bodies referred to in the clause are confined to those that are public. If one considers even for a moment which types of body it might be useful and necessary for a plan-making body to engage in terms of the information required for the production of a plan, it quickly becomes apparent that they would include private infrastructure providers—for example, private utility companies.

Amendments 104 and 105 to 108 would revise clause 90 in a way that would enable plan-making authorities to require prescribed private bodies to assist in the plan-making and plan-revising process. They achieve this simply by clarifying that prescribed bodies need not be public in terms of their ownership or have functions that are entirely of a public nature. The Minister will no doubt surprise me with the ingenuity of his reasoning as to why the amendment is unnecessary, but I cannot imagine what reason the Government have to oppose it. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Tim Farron (Liberal Democrat, Westmorland and Lonsdale)

This is a really useful amendment, and I hope that the Minister takes it seriously. Utility companies have been mentioned already. When I think of Openreach, or United Utilities, a water company in my part of the world, I think about the impact that these businesses have on our communities. The infrastructure that they oversee and are responsible for is fundamental to the wellbeing of those communities. For example, we have seen sewage on the streets in places such as Staveley and Burneside, and the answer from United Utilities is, “Put it a bid, and we’ll look at it in our next-but-one funding round.” Surely communities ought to have the ability to say to United Utilities or other water companies, or to broadband providers and other such bodies, that their access to the greater public realm and their almost monopoly position in the market mean they have a responsibility to those communities, which will be overseen by those in local authorities who have the right to make these decisions.

It is right that private bodies should be included; it should be specified in the clause. The amendment would help communities like mine to bring in hugely powerful and very wealthy outfits such as Openreach and United Utilities, so that they perform the role they should perform—to provide for every part of our community—and do not take advantage of their power and strength over the relative weakness of local authorities.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

Minister, are you going to surprise us?

Marcus Jones (Conservative, Nuneaton)

As you have probably gathered during Committee sittings, Mr Paisley, I am not necessarily one for surprises, especially on such a hot and sunny day.

The Government support giving local authorities the full range of powers necessary to prepare robust plans. I can offer reassurance that that is our intention. The power as drafted will apply to those private sector bodies that authorities are likely to need to involve in plan making. Clause 90(6) sets parameters for which bodies can be prescribed. It requires them to have functions “of a public nature.” That might, for example, include utilities companies, which are privately owned but serve an important public function and should be proactively involved in the plan-making process. The clause does not exclude relevant private bodies where they are involved in public provision, but the amendments potentially extend the requirement to private landlords, voluntary groups and unrelated businesses, which would be disproportionate where those bodies do not have public functions that are likely to be relevant to plan making.

On alignment policy, the policy will require local planning authorities to engage with neighbouring authorities and bodies involved in their area. That will be covered in the future national planning policy framework. The power places the obligation on the bodies involved. I hope that with those reassurances the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

To surprise the Minister—it is the other way round—I am entirely reassured by his response. The language in the clause is about allowing for private infrastructure companies to be involved in the plan-making process in terms of the provision of information. That is what I took from what he said. I appreciate what the Minister said about the potential disproportionate impact from drawing in other types of bodies; that was not the intention. On that basis, I am content and beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Rachael Maskell (Labour/Co-operative, York Central)

I beg to move amendment 135, in clause 90, page 96, line 30, at end insert—

“(3A) Where regulations under this section make requirements of a local authority that is failing to deliver a local plan in a timely way, the plan-making authority must consult the local community on the contents of the relevant plan.”.

This amendment would require, in the event of a local authority failing to deliver a local plan in a timely way, those taking over the process to consult with the community.

I will not labour the point because we have already had extensive discussions about the need to break the deadlock in the planning system. York is a very live example of that need: the local plan is going through a very painful process and we are absolutely determined to see the plan amended rather than being imposed. To break the deadlock and to be able to move forward, it is right that communities get a greater say. I do not plan to push the amendment to a vote today, but I trust that the Minister is hearing the importance of being able to engage with communities in order to get the right outcomes in the planning system, particularly where there is deadlock and we are on the naughty step, or at the special measures stage of the process.

Marcus Jones (Conservative, Nuneaton)

The amendment would modify clause 90 to support the more effective gathering of information required for authorities producing plans. However, its substance relates more to the plan intervention powers in proposed new section 15HA of the PCPA 2004, as inserted by schedule 7, and the importance of community engagement in plan making.

It is vital that communities are given every opportunity to have their say on draft local plans and supplementary plans. The English planning system already gives communities a key role so that they can take an active part in shaping their areas, and in doing so build local pride and belonging. We do not seek to challenge that; in fact, we are strengthening it through the Bill, and I have set out elsewhere how this will be achieved. Intervention powers have been used only sparingly in the past, and that is expected to remain the case under the plan-making system. However, they act as an important safety net and ensure that all areas can benefit from having an up-to-date local plan in place.

I would like to reassure the Committee that if the Secretary of State or a local plan commissioner were ever to take over plan preparation by using the intervention powers in proposed new section 15HA of the PCPA, the plan would need to undergo public consultation, just like any other plan. Like other procedural requirements, this will be set out through secondary legislation using the powers set out elsewhere in the Bill. Incorporating the amendment into clause 90 is therefore unnecessary. I hear that the hon. Member for York Central will not press the amendment to a Division, but I hope that I have been able to reassure her on this occasion.

Rachael Maskell (Labour/Co-operative, York Central)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Rachael Maskell (Labour/Co-operative, York Central)

I beg to move amendment 134, in clause 90, page 97, line 8, after “activities” insert—

“undertaken not more than 5 years from completion of the plan”.

This amendment seeks to ensure that material used in plans would not be older than 5 years old to still have relevance to the planning process.

In previous discussions, I have stressed the importance of ensuring that we have relevant and up-to-date information, made available in a timely way, to display the realities of situations as they stand, and we have suggested a timeframe for work around that. Circumstances change in the planning system, and I can think of a number of things that have changed in my own community—whether it is around transport planning in the area, population demographic changes or, indeed, situations like the one we are dealing with at the moment, where we are seeing a real change in the number of displaced people.

We think about the Afghans we cannot house: 12,000 of them have been in hotels for a year now. We were discussing the climate crisis earlier, and we know that 100 million people are displaced across our planet. Some of them will come to the UK and need housing. Things such as the Afghanistan crisis suddenly shift the dial, yet we do not have housing for these people. That is why it is so important to ensure that we are not relying on old information but have relevant and up-to-date information in our planning system, so we can break the deadlocks that can occur by being dependent on old data. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the planning system is more reflective of the now, as opposed to the past—a point that I have made a number of times. Unfortunately, that impacts on the outcome of the planning process.

Marcus Jones (Conservative, Nuneaton)

Clause 90 is about helping planning authorities to gather the information they need to plan effectively. It does that by requiring those organisations responsible for vital local services to assist in creating plans. We want to ensure that planning authorities can receive that assistance across a range of scenarios and issues.

I understand that the amendment is motivated by a desire to ensure that local plan evidence is up to date. Unfortunately, its effect would be to limit planning authorities use of this power to create effective plans. The amendment applies a blanket five-year time limit on the use of the power in clause 90 in advance of plan adoption, which makes it insensitive to the circumstances or type of information involved. There are many cases where it would be vital to include information gathered more than five years before a plan was adopted. For example, the character study of a conservation area might well be relevant for more than five years, as we have discussed in relation to the hon. Member’s constituency. The same goes for a utilities assessment based on information from energy networks, which work on different, longer term business planning cycles. If, for instance, the preparation of a local plan was delayed for any reason, the arbitrary time limit would prevent more information being taken into account, as the power needed to gather it could not be used.

The Government agree, however, that local plans should be backed by relevant and up-to-date evidence, which is why the evidence supporting plans will continue to be tested at the public examination. That is the place where any issues with the relevance of evidence can be addressed. I hope that with these reassurances, the hon. Member will seek to withdraw the amendment.

Rachael Maskell (Labour/Co-operative, York Central)

I hear what the Minister is saying, but he raises an important point about the different business planning cycles that involve different factors. There is certainly a need for greater co-ordination to ensure that the relevant data is available in a timely way so that it is more synced with the planning process. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Mark Hendrick (Labour/Co-operative, Preston)

Before we begin, I have a few preliminary reminders for the Committee: please switch your electronic devices to silent; no food or drinks are allowed, other than the water provided; and Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members emailed their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.

Clause 92 - Regard to certain heritage assets in exercise of planning functions

Alex Norris (Labour/Co-operative, Nottingham North)

I beg to move amendment 64, in clause 92, page 97, line 31, leave out “desirability” and insert “duty”.

This amendment would clarify that the planning authority has a duty to have special regard in planning permission decisions for preserving or enhancing heritage assets or their settings.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Mark. We have now reached chapter 3 of part 3 of the Bill, which relates to heritage. Britain’s incredible heritage is one of our best assets, and is loved universally by our constituents. The debate is well-timed, as this year the world celebrates the 50th anniversary of the UNESCO world heritage convention, the most significant feature of which is the linking together in one place of the concepts of nature, conservation and the preservation of cultural properties. This is the international convention under which sites of outstanding universal value to all people are inscribed as world heritage sites. Parliament ratified the convention in 1984, so I think it is widely believed by the public that our 30 sites in Britain that are inscribed on the world heritage list have strong statutory protection, meaning they cannot be harmed and that there must be engagement to actively conserve them so that they can be better enjoyed and understood. However, this is not quite so.

It is a shame that the draft Heritage Protection Bill in 2010 never got further than it did; its progress was impeded and it was never replaced, leaving gaps and weaknesses in the preservation of world heritage sites. As a result, the historic environment has remained a subsidiary consideration in the planning rules and regulations that govern development work, which can so often impinge on our irreplaceable cultural heritage sites. The protection of archaeological sites with no current designation continues to hang in the balance, not to mention the buried historic environment, which has no designation and includes the vast majority of prehistoric to early medieval archaeology in this country.

While it is mainly professional archaeologists who are aware of and interested in the irretrievable loss of such buried heritage, the consequences of the lack of specific heritage protection for standing buildings and monuments is immediately visible to all. We have some relatable and understandable examples in this country: UNESCO has made clear that the Stonehenge, Avebury and associated sites, which were originally inscribed in 1986, could face delisting in the face of the plans for development around that site; and we have seen in Liverpool that when development is not sympathetic to a heritage site it can lead to delisting. Local authorities need the tools to make sure they develop their areas sympathetically.

Having engaged with the heritage profession, I know it welcomes the enhanced protection that clause 92 will introduce, although thinks that the categories could be wider, as we will discuss in subsequent amendments. However, there is concern among heritage professionals, such as those on the RESCUE Council at the British Archaeological Trust, that the use of the word “desirability” in clause 92 does not sufficiently reflect a duty on planning decision makers to have special regard to preserving or enhancing heritage sites and monuments, or their settings. The word “desirability” suggests that that duty would be a conditional or subjective judgment based on balances of other features of development. This could lead to a situation where developers argue that conservation is inconvenient or too challenging, and that their own interests ought to take precedence, as they do under current legal arrangements. That is what has happened in the case of the Liverpool site.

I am keen to test this with the Minister. I am largely aiming to probe with this amendment, but it is arguable that the current wording would not give protection to, for example, Stonehenge, whose delisting would be a real problem for all of us. I hope to hear from the Minister that the fear is misplaced and that the Government’s understanding is that the language in the Bill will have the same effect as I am seeking. Amendment 64 is simple: it swaps the word “desirability” to “duty” to strengthen the wording in the Bill and to take away some ambiguity. I hope that the Minister can establish that and is minded to agree on at least the substance, if not on the granular point.

Marcus Jones (Conservative, Nuneaton)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Sir Mark.

The purpose of clause 92 is to introduce a similar legislative duty for other types of heritage asset to the one that already exists for listed buildings and conservation areas. Amendment 64 would replace “desirability” with “duty”. The specific wording used in the clause is not new; it is taken directly from the existing duties for listed buildings and conservation areas in sections 66(1) and 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

Those duties have been in place for many years, and are well established and well understood. The courts have confirmed that those duties to have special regard provide important protections. They require decision makers to give considerable importance and weight to the desirability of preserving or enhancing heritage assets. The intention behind clause 92 is to put other types of heritage asset in a similar position. I hope that the hon. Member takes that into account. In my considered view, the amendment is not required and we do not need to change the duty that has worked well to date. I hope I have provided sufficient reassurance for him to withdraw his amendment.

Alex Norris (Labour/Co-operative, Nottingham North)

I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I am slightly uncomfortable that he relies on the 1990 Act, because that clearly was not sufficient in Liverpool, and there is a real and current risk around Stonehenge. On his point about case law and strong consideration, again that has not always been effective in cases where we might have wanted it to be. We then rely on the courts to test the edge cases; maybe that is inevitable, but we could eradicate some of that with slightly stronger language. At this point, I do not think it is beneficial to labour this any further, because the Minister made a clear statement about his intent, which was welcome. We may wish to return to this at a later stage, but if colleagues are content then I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Rachael Maskell (Labour/Co-operative, York Central)

I beg to move amendment 128, in clause 92, page 97, line 31, after “enhancing” insert “the significance of”.

This amendment adds to the description of the purpose of sensitive management of heritage assets.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Mark. This amendment looks at not just an asset, but the significance of an asset. Preserving or enhancing an asset may not be possible, but preserving its importance and significance could be.

In York, there is much to determine the social history of our city. Of course, assets are often thought about in terms of bricks and architecture, rather than their social significance and the way that has fed into the wider architecture of a place. In York, there is a process that prevents anything from obliterating the view of the Minster, for instance, and thus its significance as a centre and a beacon across not only York, but North Yorkshire. It can be seen from miles away, so the building of flats as is happening currently, or the plans proposed on the site of the gasworks, would remove the significance of that asset. Preserving it is really important. Likewise, the centre for heritage arts that is currently being developed to go to planning is causing concern about the way it could detract from the view of the Minster. Although it is not directly impeding on the material asset, its development could have significance.

Another example many will know of is Bootham Crescent, the former home of York City Football Club. It was built in 1932 and has only just closed. The stands were something to behold. Maintaining the spirit of Bootham is important. It is where many people have laid ashes to rest. There are significant tunnels under the ground, which have important graffiti on them—fans would cross the stadium through them mid-match and fights would break out. Maintaining these assets is about the working-class population of York and the significance of football to them.

York Central—here we go again—was the home of the British Rail carriage works, and has real significance for the blue-collar workers of our city, who made a tremendous contribution to the railways. Yet this could well be wiped out by the York Central development, so none of its significance to the building of the railways over 100 years would remain. Therefore, it is not just about the asset itself and how important it is, but is about the social story that can be told by it. That is why I believe that my amendment is important for looking at how heritage assets are preserved.

Alex Norris (Labour/Co-operative, Nottingham North)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for York Central on amendment 128. It is very thoughtful, as was the case that she made for it. In the next group we are going to talk a bit more about the importance of social history, so I will save a few points for later, but I do want to reflect on the point about significance and developing significance.

We know, as I said on opening in the previous group, that our constituents and people in this country generally feel strongly about their culture and their heritage assets. They want our generation and all subsequent generations to be custodians of those assets. We have a duty to bring them to the fore, develop them and to have them in the way that they can be best enjoyed because they are a core part of our identity, our culture and our history—both the easy and the less easy bits to talk about. They are such an integral part of our story that people feel strongly about them. There is a duty to enhance the significance of a particular asset, so that those jewels—diamonds in the rough, perhaps—are not laid there and just ignored for generations and generations, getting harder to bring to the fore. It would only be a good thing to put that in the Bill.

Marcus Jones (Conservative, Nuneaton)

Clause 92 introduces a new statutory duty for

“the local planning authority or (as the case may be) the Secretary of State”

to

“have special regard to the desirability of preserving or enhancing”

scheduled monuments, protected wreck sites, registered parks and gardens, registered battlefields, world heritage sites, and their settings when considering whether to grant planning permission or permission in principle for the development of land in England which affects them. Clause 92 provides that

“preserving or enhancing a relevant asset or its setting includes preserving or enhancing any feature, quality or characteristic of the asset or setting that contributes to the significance of the asset.”

The significance of each asset is set out in the Bill, so the hon. Member for York Central should be reassured that the consideration of the significance of our heritage assets forms part of this new duty.

While I appreciate that the concept of significance is crucial to the protection of designated heritage assets within the national planning policy framework, the amendment is not necessary, as the issue of significance is already addressed in the legislation. For those reasons, we cannot accept the amendment, and I hope that on the basis of my explanation the hon. Member will withdraw it.

Rachael Maskell (Labour/Co-operative, York Central)

I think we will go on to have a further discussion about this matter. Given that the concept is within the NPPF, as the Minister said, I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Rachael Maskell (Labour/Co-operative, York Central)

I beg to move amendment 136, in clause 92, page 98, line 34, at end insert—

“a site of significant social history relevant to the heritage of a place

some asset or setting which has significant impact on the social history of a place”.

This amendment is designed to protect areas where significant social history of a place was established.

Mark Hendrick (Labour/Co-operative, Preston)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 138, in clause 92, page 98, line 34, at end insert—

“a National Park

the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage, and the opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of the area by the public, under section 5 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949

an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the area, under section 82 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000”.

This amendment would protect as heritage assets National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

Rachael Maskell (Labour/Co-operative, York Central)

Romans, Vikings and medieval Britain are often on people’s minds as they visit and walk the walls of our city, yet the social history of York has a far more powerful application to our city’s development. The amendment highlights the importance of that. I think of Bootham Park Hospital, built in 1772, and the history that it made in managing mental health in our country and really advancing mental health treatment; only in 1796 did the Retreat open and improve mental health provision. Those assets have been disposed of to the private sector, which just wants to turn them into commercial outlets. Of course, that does not take on board their significant contribution to mental health in our country, and how it changed the way mental health was dealt with across the world. We are losing the significance of those assets because there is simply not enough protection in law to preserve that amazing history.

I can give other examples—for instance, the Castle Gateway project in York. Clifford’s Tower is very significant to our nation’s history, particularly Jewish history in our country. It is also a site of justice. It is where Lascelles fought Wilberforce to come to this place to fight slavery. A significant debate took place there, yet the Castle Gateway project would turn it into parkland. There would be no reference whatsoever to the significance of that major piece of British history. It is therefore really important that we look at how we can build in such assets, and recognise the incredible fabric of social history.

Amendment 136 is therefore really important, as is amendment 138. I hope that the Government will understand the significance of it too, given the felling of ancient woodlands—bulldozing our cathedrals of nature. Our natural heritage must also be preserved.

Tim Farron (Liberal Democrat, Westmorland and Lonsdale)

It is a pleasure to serve under your guidance, Sir Mark. I support the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for York Central, but will speak to my own, amendment 138.

Clause 92 is important. What is in it is not a problem. I propose to add to it national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty, which are defined areas within the country, as heritage assets that would require consideration in planning.

We mentioned world heritage site status. The Bill defines a world heritage site as

“a property appearing on the World Heritage List”.

The Lake district is not a property; it is an area, which is a different classification. In any event, not all national parks, and certainly not all areas of outstanding natural beauty, are world heritage sites. It is five years to the month since the Lake district obtained world heritage site status, which we are very proud of.

It is worth saying that the document that UNESCO presented on the day that world heritage site status was given to the Lake district gave as much credit to the farmers as to the glaciers for how the landscape was formed and maintained. It is important to recognise that the things that count as our heritage that are part of our landscape need preserving. There are many threats that we need to guard against, one or two of which I will come on to in a moment, and that is why it would be helpful for the amendment to be included in the Bill.

It is worth bearing in mind that features such as dry stone walls, barns, and the general look, appeal and aesthetics of the landscape do not happen by accident. They happen because they are farmed, and because they are maintained by people who, alongside their farming, maintain the infrastructure and the structures of the landscape in the Yorkshire dales, the Lake district, the Arnside and Silverdale area of outstanding natural beauty in my own constituency, and many more areas besides.

Of course, our written heritage—our heritage of literature, poetry and art of all different kinds—is massively inspired by the natural landscape. The work of the likes of Wordsworth, Ruskin, Potter more recently, Alfred Wainwright and even Kurt Schwitters was very much inspired by the environment where they were.

However, if we look at the transformation in recent years of the Langdale valleys, Troutbeck valley, Kentmere valley in the Lake district, Dentdale and Garsdale in the Yorkshire dales, and many more besides, we see an evolution—and not in a good way. There has been a human de-stocking of those valleys, which it is not the focus of this Committee to look at; nevertheless, because of the change in the way the farm payments are being operated, there are incentives for people to become landowners, including big finance houses. There is a very clear incentive to buy up huge tracts of land—land that currently comprises dozens of tenanted farms—and apply through landscape recovery for funding from the Government, clearing the tenant farmers off the land. That is what we will see.

Now that in itself is an appalling thing and will have an impact on our heritage, but it will often lead to planning proposals that could end up being very relevant to the Bill. Take the example of a hedge fund that buys up two or three valleys in the hope of taking free cash from the Government by clearing off its tenants to allow the place to go wild. In doing that, it will potentially have to apply for planning permission to change houses into holiday accommodation of different kinds, and the hedge fund might seek to do a whole range of things with the buildings that it takes on once it has cleared the tenants out of them. This is all gruesome stuff, by the way, but it is absolutely possible given the Government’s trajectory at the moment.

If the amendment is included in the Bill, we will at least have given our planning authorities some power to push back against that terrible abuse of the Government’s current trajectory, which allows those who have the power to buy up huge tracts of land in our countryside and eject farmers from places that they have often farmed for generations. It is sometimes very hard to specify what aesthetics is—how do we measure aesthetics? Well, UNESCO has managed it: it has given world heritage site status to the Lake district, and—as has been mentioned by the hon. Member for Nottingham North—Liverpool proves that that status can be lost. It would be terrible if that were to be the case, so let us put into the Bill measures that will protect our environment, our landscape and all those huge cultural benefits that are at risk, both from features that are beyond the Government’s control and some that are well within their control.

Alex Norris (Labour/Co-operative, Nottingham North)

It is a pleasure to speak to these two thoughtful and very good amendments. I do not think anywhere has a richer social history than Nottingham, so amendment 136 feels very close to home.

In 1642, at the beginning of the civil war, Charles I raised his standard in Nottingham, at what is now called Standard hill. That was not met with an awful lot of enthusiasm from the people of Nottingham, so when the civil war had finished the castle that he had sought to make his base was torn down. It was rebuilt a little later, and was then burned down 200 years after that during the riots relating to the second Reform Bill and the failure of Parliament to pass legislation that extended the franchise. Now we are about 200 years later than that, so I hope we are not due for that castle to once again meet an untimely demise, because we have put an awful lot of money into it through a heritage lottery fund bid.

That tells a big story about our city, as do the cheese riots, which took place because people were upset about the price of cheese—the Lord Mayor was bowled over by a big rolling cheese, according to legend. The luddite movement has its roots in Nottingham, and the first Chartist MP came from our city. Those rich and rebellious streaks are characteristic of our city’s community and social history, and they are an important part of the fabric of our memories about ourselves and those who came before us.

The point is true across the country, particularly in relation to the industrial revolution, which birthed the trade union movement and women’s movements. Those collective acts of thousands and thousands of ordinary people may not have big buildings, palaces or castles as obvious monuments and heritage, but they had sites that are just as important: the meeting rooms above taverns, houses, public spaces and parks where those events took place.

It is important that we understand that those places are as much a part of Britain and Britishness as the really huge and obvious monuments. The Bill should prioritise such places because they are more easily lost—it is much easier to lose the meeting room above a pub as part of a development than it is to lose a palace. We would not wish to lose either one more than the other, so including a sort of equivalence in the Bill would be a good thing.

Amendment 138 is a good idea. The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale is in good company because, as he said, UNESCO has already designated the Lake district a world heritage site. Putting the Bill on the same footing would give it strength and send a clear signal to developers, planners and all those interested in heritage that we consider such places to be clear and obvious assets. They may not be as obvious as a single building in a single place, but they ought to be treated just as well. I commend the amendments and the Members who tabled them.

Marcus Jones (Conservative, Nuneaton)

Clause 92 provides additional legislative protection in the planning system to the list of designated heritage assets that have previously been afforded protection through the national planning policy framework.

Sites of significant social history are important to our nation’s history. Many of them are already afforded protections in the planning process, either as designated or non-designated heritage assets. Manchester’s Free Trade Hall, for example, is a site of significant social history due to its role in the repealing of the corn laws, and it is a listed building.

The heritage assets set out in the table in the clause are all recognised historic environment designations. Amendment 136 would add a new category that is not clearly recognised as a heritage designation. There is no national list of sites of significant social history, which would, in practice, lead to arguments and legal challenges if the status of a site—whether it falls within the definition and should benefit from protection—is disputed.

Amendment 138 would add national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty to the clause. Although I agree that those are a vital part of our nation’s environment and landscapes, the amendment would result in environmental designations that are already protected elsewhere being added to the list of protected heritage assets. They are already well protected under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, and as environmental designations in the planning system. Different regimes with conflicting protections relating to the same assets would cause confusion.

We also already have a strong set of environmental protections in the national planning policy framework. It sets out that areas of outstanding national beauty, national parks and the broads have the highest status of protection. Under our broader reforms to the planning system, the conservation and enhancement of wildlife and cultural heritage should be given great weight in development plans and planning decisions. Major development should be refused other than in exceptional circumstances. Areas of outstanding national beauty are also exempt from the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

In response to the landscapes review, the Government set out their intention to strengthen the statutory purposes of national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty to create a clear objective to ensure that those areas deliver more for nature and are accessible to everyone. We propose to create a single set of statutory purposes for areas of outstanding natural beauty teams and national park authorities, providing a more consistent and unified statutory framework for all protected landscapes.

We also propose to strengthen the associated statutory duties towards national park and areas of outstanding natural beauty purposes and management plans so that they are given greater weight by the relevant bodies when exercising public functions.

Natural England is also producing new guidance on national park and areas of outstanding natural beauty management plans, with the intention that management plans should set out clear actions, aligned with local management plans and national priorities such as those within the 25-year environment plan, including on beauty, heritage and engagement. For those reasons we do not accept amendments 136 and 138. I hope I have provided sufficient reassurances to the hon. Members for York Central and for Westmorland and Lonsdale to enable them to withdraw their amendments.

Rachael Maskell (Labour/Co-operative, York Central)

I listened carefully to the Minister’s response. First, I want to thank the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale for setting out the implications of his amendment for natural and rural heritage; we can see how that can rapidly disappear into a developer’s dream and a local community’s nightmare. A highland clearance in the modern era is something that we have to take stock of. The protections clearly are not there, in the same way that protections are not there currently under the NPPF, because we are seeing significant sites of social history also having a diminution of their significance through the developments being brought forward. Although the Minister is right to say that there is legislation that can address the issues, there is clearly a mismatch in what happens in practice. As a result, I still have significant concerns.

The Minister talked about the fact that sites of social significance are not currently recognised in the legislative framework, and I will certainly take that back to archaeologists because they would want to see significant change—perhaps even a Bill in its own right—to address that. Because of the way that many developers are currently behaving, I fear we will lose much of our significant past, so we need to find mechanisms to protect us. On the basis of exploring further legislation, I am happy to withdraw my amendment now, but we will return to it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Tim Farron (Liberal Democrat, Westmorland and Lonsdale)

I am grateful to the Minister for his detailed response to the amendments.

The landscape review does give potential for there to be additional protections for areas of outstanding beauty such as the north Pennines and Arnside and Silverdale in Cumbria and across north Lancashire. It is worth bearing in mind that landscape heritage is lost quickly and subtly and not often as a result of a direct planning proposal. It is not that developers come in and decide to build several hundred properties in Longsleddale; it is that Longsleddale changes because farmers cease to be farmers and the area ceases to be farmed.

We therefore see—moving away from Lonsdale to other parts of the lakes and dales—the dry stone walls crumbling, with the loss of that vital part of our heritage going. We see the barns crumbling. The historic heritage species disappear, and access to the fells and dales disappears as well. The subtle but perceptible feel and aesthetics of those places—not just those that we have grown up with, but that have been the feature of a lived experience over hundreds and hundreds of years—begins to change.

Landscape heritage is lost quickly and subtly, and partly in response to Government action or inaction, whether accidental or deliberate. We have a food strategy, or an approach to farm funding, that is almost deliberately written to reduce the amount of food that we produce in this country. As a result, it will be a less-farmed environment, and it will look different. Given that the tourism economy of the Lake district, Yorkshire dales and Cumbria is worth £3.5 billion a year, that will have a huge impact monetarily and economically, as well as aesthetically.

I am happy not to press my amendment to a vote. We will keep a close eye on what the Government intend in terms of safeguards for our landscape heritage and culture, and we will wait to see whether greater protections are provided as the Bill progresses.

Alex Norris (Labour/Co-operative, Nottingham North)

I beg to move amendment 69, in clause 92, page 99, line 29, at end insert—

“(5) The Secretary of State must, within one year of the day on which this section comes into force, publish a report of a review of the efficacy of Local Heritage Lists and the resources local authorities have to produce them.

(6) The Secretary of State must, on the day on which this section comes into force, publish the results of the 2018 review of the non-statutory guidance on Assets of Community Value.”

The amendment proposes two new subsections to the clause, which I will deal with in turn. First, proposed new subsection (5) concerns local heritage lists, which identify heritage assets that are not protected by statutory listing designation but are of local interest. They provide a consistent and accountable way of highlighting the existence of those important assets and affording them a layer of extra protection against unwanted development. Those sites may not be the sort that bring someone from one place to visit another, but for those who live in the community, they are an integral part of the fabric of their daily lives: community centres, libraries, old town halls or pubs.

At the moment, local planning authorities have discretion on whether to develop local heritage lists, although they have very much been encouraged to do so by the Government and by bodies such as Historic England and Civic Voice. More recently, the national planning policy framework stated that local listing should be taken into account in the consideration of relevant planning applications. Additionally, some planning authorities include in their local plans policies that recognise the importance of non-designated heritage assets, so that status will be a material consideration if and when planning applications are lodged. On the face of it, the lists are a really powerful and important way of balancing the planning system and protecting the assets that communities know and love.

We welcome the fact that, in February last year, the Government announced funding of £1.5 million to support local authorities in improving, extending or updating their local heritage lists or preparing their first lists. Twenty-two areas put in successful bids. We are pleased for those areas, but this comes back to what we discussed in relation to previous clauses: another beauty parade where some authorities succeed and others do not, and in the end all are worse off because of cuts to council budgets. Given the universal importance of the local heritage lists, we want them to be put on a properly funded basis.

There is a lot in that to be optimistic about. However—and herein lies the rub, and the purpose of this element of my amendment—it is believed that only around 50% of planning authorities have a local heritage list. That means that citizens in neighbouring boroughs and districts can experience very different standards of recognition and protection of their local heritage assets. Amendment 69 would require the Government to research the extent to which local heritage lists have been developed, the quality and effectiveness of the lists, the reasons for any disparities between local authorities and some of the resource issues that underlie heritage list production.

The provision is relatively basic. It requires the Government to understand what practical effect previous legislation has had, and what practical effect the funding that they put in place is having. It would ensure a proper evaluation of local heritage lists, so that—and this is my goal—they are promoted and properly used by local communities to protect important assets, and that all people have the protection of those heritage lists in law, as they ought to. It is a problem that we do not know how many local heritage lists there are, their quality or how well they are used. This is supposed to be an important provision—where used properly, it has been—but we do not have a good sense of it. The amendment would make that much better, so I hope that the Minister is minded to agree to it.

Proposed new subsection (6) relates to assets of community value. The Localism Act 2011 enables community groups to ask local authorities to register properties of local importance as assets of community value. Many valued premises—the subsection has pubs in mind—have been successfully nominated. That is in no small part thanks to the work and activism of members of the Campaign for Real Ale who, around the country, have made great efforts to ensure that important assets have been registered as assets of community value, because that gives a distinct importance and protection to local communities.

If the owner of an ACV listed property wishes to sell it, in normal circumstances the community group can lodge a bid, triggering a six-month moratorium during which no other sale can take place. That gives them a right to bid and has no doubt been a factor in the growth of community-owned pubs, up from 56 in 2017 to 179 today and rising. We can do much better than that. Colleagues may have seen announcements in recent days from the Opposition about how we will do that in future, although we are likely to need a general election rather than pass primary legislation to make that the case.

The 2011 Act was accompanied by non-statutory guidance from the then Department of Housing, Communities and Local Government to local authorities on the implementation of the ACV process, in particular how they should deal with nominations. It soon became apparent that parts of that guidance were unclear or ambiguous, which has led to significant disparities in the way in which authorities consider nominations. In many areas, local groups find it difficult to get their nominations accepted because of the restricted ways or lack of focus with which their local authority interprets the Act and the guidance.

The Government recognised that, because in 2018 they instituted a review of the guidance and invited interested parties to make suggestions for improving or clarifying the content. The Government have not said how many responses they received, but I know that the Campaign for Real Ale made a detailed submission highlighting some of the pitfalls. It has a good view because it works with local authorities all over the country, so were able to tell the Government the different ways in which the process operated with regards to definitions, the nomination process and the procedure for appeals.

All that is very good, but the problem is the resounding silence in the four years since. There is no indication if or when there will be action on improving the guidance and whether it will be made public. Subsection (6) is a relatively minimal ask. It just says that on the day that the measure comes into force, the Government ought to publish the results of the review. They have had them for four years. It is hard to believe that they are not ready to go. I am not sure whether the Minister was in the Department at that point, but he may recall that.

If the Minister is not minded to accept that provision in the Bill, would he give a commitment on whether the consultation is coming out or whether too much has elapsed over the last four years and it is no longer active? People put a lot of effort into the submissions to the consultation, and they deserve the finality of knowing one way or the other.

If the answer is no, the Government should want to find a way to establish assets of community value in a similar way to the local heritage list: why the system works in the way that it does, with a sober and honest assessment of whether it reflects what they were minded to do in the 2011 Act. I argue that it does not at the moment, and has created disparities, not in the form that is genuine localism, which we support, but in the form where some communities have the protection of local heritage lists and assets of community value registers and others do not. We should want to get to the bottom of that, if such provisions are to be effective.

Marcus Jones (Conservative, Nuneaton)

The Government recognise the need to protect historic buildings and other assets that are valued by local communities, but the national listed buildings regime protects our most special buildings. We recognise that there are many other buildings and assets which local people cherish. Planning practice guidance already encourages local planning authorities to prepare local lists of non-designated heritage assets. Those assets are protected through national planning policy, which states that the effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account when determining the application.

As the hon. Member for Nottingham North mentioned, we have given £1.5 million to 22 areas across England to support local planning authorities and their communities to develop new and updated local heritage lists. The intention is to see what lessons are learned from that work. Those lessons will then be shared with other local authorities so that they can benefit from the good practice that has been built up. We will also develop new proposals for statutory national development management policies, including to protect local heritage sites, alongside the development of the new national planning policy framework. Such proposals will be subject to future consultation, as we have discussed a number of times in Committee.

Turning to assets of community value, we recognise that community ownership of assets is a proven way of ensuring that important local assets and amenities remain under local control for the benefit of current and future generations. Our approach will therefore provide both the policy framework to support community ownership and the practical resources to achieve it. In the levelling-up White Paper, we committed to strengthening the frameworks around community ownership of assets, including assets of community value schemes, and we will continue to make funds available to groups through the community ownership fund.

As the hon. Gentleman will know, I was involved in the review of assets of community value in its embryonic stage in 2017, as I recall. It was completed in 2018, when I was no longer in the Department. The review was not published; however, the findings were used to inform policy decisions and direct further work, such as the commissioning of the report by Power to Change on the contribution of ACVs to local economies, as well as the communities framework, which was published in 2019. In the levelling-up White Paper, we made the following clear commitment:

“As part of the strategy for community spaces and relationships, the UK Government will consider how the existing Community Asset Transfer and Asset of Community Value Schemes can be enhanced, and consult on options to go further to support community ownership.”

That supersedes the original 2015 manifesto commitment.

We are currently scoping out plans for that strategy in the Department. Once we have taken that further, no doubt we will be able to provide further information to the hon. Gentleman and to Members across the House. On that basis, I hope that I have provided him with enough reassurance to withdraw the amendment.

Alex Norris (Labour/Co-operative, Nottingham North)

I am grateful to the Minister for that very full answer, which addressed both points of substance very clearly. I heard what he said about money having been given to 22 areas for local heritage lists on a test and learn basis, which will clearly be part of the rest of the Bill. I will not labour the point any further, but I hope that that could be operated quite quickly, because there are lots of people in the sector who could tell Ministers very clearly where best practice is, and perhaps where it is not. I do not think that it ought to take a very long time to roll that out beyond the 22 areas to all local authorities, although I was pleased to hear the Minister’s commitment to doing so. We will be keeping a close eye on the resourcing of that.

On assets of community value, the legislation is supposed to be the White Paper made real—the White Paper brought to life in statute. If we take the Government’s commitment in the White Paper at face value, it is a shame that the moment has been missed to do that now, instead of leaving it to consideration of how it might be developed, as the Minister said. This would have been the perfect moment to act on that commitment, but clearly the Government are not minded to do that.

I am grateful again to the Minister for directly addressing the point of the 2018 review. It is good to hear that the findings were used. It is clear that there was value in the exercise, although I would say gently that there should have been some completion. I have talked about this to a number of people in the sector who are still awaiting a response. From the Minister’s response today, they will understand that that will not be forthcoming in a formal way. At least they now know that, and I am grateful for that.

The amendment was designed to provoke a conversation and I am grateful for the Minister’s response. We will very much hold these issues at the forefront of our mind—particularly to move at greater speed on local heritage lists, but also to ensure that that the consideration of assets of community value actually leads to some sort of action. I very much hope that it will. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Mark Hendrick (Labour/Co-operative, Preston)

With this it will be convenient to discuss clauses 93 to 95 stand part.

Marcus Jones (Conservative, Nuneaton)

We are committed to protecting and enhancing our historic environment, which is an irreplaceable asset. Any planning decisions that impact on it should be given the utmost consideration. Generally, we consider the current planning framework for the historic environment to work well. However, through our work with stakeholders, we have identified areas in which it can be improved.

One such issue is the lack of statutory underpinning for key designated heritage assets within the planning system. The national planning policy framework defines designated heritage assets and sets policies related to their conservation and enhancement. However, planning legislation currently stipulates only that decision makers shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving listed buildings and preserving or enhancing conservation areas when exercising the planning functions specified. Clause 92 creates a similar legislative planning duty to have special regard to the preservation or enhancement of scheduled monuments, registered parks and gardens, protected wrecks, registered battlefields and world heritage sites when granting planning permissions or permission in principle.

Additionally, the existing legislation provides only for special regard to be given to the desirability of preserving listed buildings when granting planning permission or permission in principle. Clause 92 extends that to include the desirability of preserving or enhancing a listed building. Creating a statutory duty to have special regard to the desirability of preserving or enhancing these heritage assets aims to streamline the decision-making process and provide consistency between the legislative heritage planning framework and national planning policy framework.

On clause 93, under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, local planning authorities have the power to issue temporary stop notices. The notices are a powerful tool that can be used by authorities to require that development or an activity is stopped if the planning authority thinks that there has been a breach of planning control and that it is expedient for that activity to be stopped immediately. They can use the time to investigate the suspected breach and decide what, if any, further enforcement action to take.

However, there is not an equivalent provision in the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 for unauthorised works to listed buildings in England. That means that where there are suspected unauthorised works to a listed building in England the local planning authority’s only options are to issue an enforcement notice—which will not immediately stop the works—or apply to the court for an injunction to stop the works, which is often costly. The clause creates a new power for local planning authorities to issue temporary stop notices in relation to unauthorised works to listed buildings in England if, having regard to the effect of the works on the character of the buildings as one of special architectural or historic interest, they consider it expedient that the works, or part of them, be stopped immediately. That power will allow works to be paused for up to 56 days while the facts of the case are established and the local authority decides what, if any, further action to take.

Failure to comply with a notice will be an offence with a maximum penalty of an unlimited fine. There are circumstances where compensation may be payable for any loss or damage directly attributable to the effect of the notice. Addressing the gap in local authorities’ enforcement powers in relation to listed buildings will help to protect irreplaceable assets for generations to come. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.

Alex Norris (Labour/Co-operative, Nottingham North)

I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of the clauses that complete the heritage part of the Bill. It is clear from the amendments and the debates that we have had about them that this is something that interests hon. Members and their constituents, and I believe there is broad support for this part of the Bill—the entirety of part 3 up to chapter 3. However, I want to ask the Minister a couple of questions. I will not make any further points about clause 92 because we have covered them in a previous debate.

On clause 93, we support the idea of stop notices, which would allow work to be paused for up to 56 days in order for an investigation to take place. I wonder why the Minister chose that duration. Why 56 days? What would be the effect of that? Has he or his officials spoken to the Local Government Association about whether it feels that that would be effective? The developer is entitled to compensation for delay, which will be interesting when we get to clause 95. Will the Minister tell us how that will work in practice and what local government colleagues have said about that?

On clause 94 and empty dwellings, we were not able to persuade the Minister to adopt the Welsh Government’s approach, but we are delighted to see in the clause that that is exactly what the Government have done. It will allow urgent works take place where a building is at risk from the weather, vandalism or any other neglect. That will be a good thing. It is welcome that that measure has been replicated here in England.

Finally, clause 95 governs building preservation notices. Currently, a council can add a BPN to an unlisted building that is at risk of demolition or alteration and which a council considers of special architectural or historic interest. The notices last for six months and must be accompanied by an application to Historic England for listing. The Secretary of State then has six months to decide whether to accept that, and the building is essentially listed during that period to protect it. It is a very good provision. Can the Minister say how frequently that has been used to give us a sense of the scale of the challenge ?

The clause removes compensation, but in clause 93 that is not the case. The conversation continues there. There has certainly been some interesting written evidence and direct contact with members of the Committee from different organisations from both sides, both the preservation side and the development side, saying that it is unfair that that is not the case. We can read that argument either way. I am comfortable either way, but I am interested that the Government have chosen different ways in different parts of the Bill. They are different things, so I can understand it to an extent, but they are not so different that that lack of consistency will not raise a few eyebrows. I am interested in why the Minister chose that approach.

Marcus Jones (Conservative, Nuneaton)

I thank the hon. Member for Nottingham North for his questions. I will first address his question on the serving of notices. As he knows, building preservation notices protect a building for up to six months while it is being considered for designation as a listed building. BPNs achieve targeted and time-limited intervention to protect buildings of such interest that are under threat, rather than the blanket protection placed on all buildings being considered for listing during that interim period, regardless of whether they are under threat. BPNs are considered an appropriate stopgap mechanism for the interim period before longer-term protections are applied, while balancing the rights of owners and property rights.

As I have mentioned, interested parties currently have a right to claim compensation for loss or damage incurred during that period if, at the end of it, the building in question is not listed by the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. Clause 95 removes the possibility that a local planning authority will be obliged to pay compensation should it decide to make use of its power to serve a building preservation notice.

That right to claim compensation often deters local planning authorities from serving building preservation notices—some do not even consider a BPN because of the risk of compensation—which occasionally results in the demolition or alteration of buildings that are potentially of listable quality before they can be considered by the Secretary of State. Removal of the right to compensation for building preservation notices will strengthen the range of enforcement tools available to local planning authorities.

The 56-day period that the hon. Gentleman mentioned is basically to ensure consistency in the provisions for when local authorities have the opportunity to take such action.

Alex Norris (Labour/Co-operative, Nottingham North)

The Minister has made a compelling case for clause 95—he has certainly persuaded me—but it also reads across to clause 93, so why would those measures not apply in this case?

Marcus Jones (Conservative, Nuneaton)

As I read it, clause 93 requires the works to stop for up to 56 days, which demonstrates consistency across both clauses. On that basis, I commend the clauses to the Committee.

Clause 96 - Street votes

Marcus Jones (Conservative, Nuneaton)

Clause 96 is a placeholder clause. The Government’s intention is to replace it with substantive provisions later in the Bill’s passage.

New development is commonly met with hesitance from local residents—it is often perceived as a threat to the beauty of the area or as an unwanted disruption—usually because residents see it as imposed upon them and bearing little relationship to the character of the area. Fundamentally, people are more likely to support development that they feel they can control.

Street votes will provide a new way of consenting to development that will enable residents to come together and bring forward the development they want to see on their streets. A group of residents will be able to develop proposals to extend or replace properties on their street. They will have the option either to provide a detailed development specification, or to prepare a design code that any development they permit must comply with. Development proposals put forward by residents will be independently examined against a set of development and design rules set out in legislation to ensure that they meet high design standards and do not lead to adverse impacts on the local environment and the wider community. Planning permission will be granted only when an examining body is satisfied that the proposal has met these and other statutory requirements, and when the proposal is endorsed by a large majority of residents at referendum.

The use of street votes will be restricted in sensitive locations, such as the green belt. Street votes will encourage residents to consider the potential for new development on their streets. Where residents choose to take up the opportunity, street votes will help to deliver new or more spacious homes in places where they are most needed and in a way that is supported by the people who are most affected by that development. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

As the Minister has made clear, clause 96 is a placeholder clause. All it specifies is that the Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for a system that permits residents of a street to propose development on it and to determine, by means of a vote, whether that form of development is given planning permission. At the outset, I have to put on the record that we are instinctively uncomfortable with placeholder clauses of this kind. They are an implicit admission that a piece of legislation is incomplete and that policy in a given area has not been finalised. The absence of any detail about what substantive provisions might replace such placeholder clauses in future is an impediment to effective legislative scrutiny.

Furthermore, the increased use of placeholder clauses in recent legislation, as well as the general upward trend in the number of amendments that add new policies to a Bill part way through its passage or following completion, should be a cause of concern to any hon. Member who values good lawmaking. Nor are we satisfied with the reassurances set out in the explanatory notes to the Bill that any new system introduced by means of the clause will receive appropriate scrutiny—we are all familiar with the limitations of an affirmative procedure in that respect. We therefore seek from the Minister some sense—further to what he has just said—of what the new system will look like, how it will operate in practice and what its wider implications might be.

The basic concept of street votes is easy to grasp. We certainly appreciate that, at least in theory, democratically approved codes that permit development, or the extension or redevelopment of all the properties on any given street, may be a way to facilitate the gentle densification of inner suburbs—an outcome that would undoubtedly have a range of benefits, not least boosting productivity. The issue is whether and how such a system would work in practice. My strong suspicion is that any new street votes system introduced will likely be something of a damp squib and, ultimately, we will not see any significant uptake, which is largely why I struggle to get too worked up about the prospect of its introduction.

However, given the powers that the Government are seeking for themselves by means of the clause, we do need some answers from the Minister, and I ask that he provides them on six distinct areas. First, we deserve to know why the Government believe that an entirely new system for the hyper-local devolution of planning powers is required or, to put it another way, what problem are the clause and the substantive provisions to follow attempting to address.

I ask because the Minister will know that the Localism Act 2011 gives neighbourhood forums the power to create and vote on neighbourhood development orders. Such orders grant planning permission for specific types of development in a particular area following a referendum, thus enabling greater control over development, densification and design. That is essentially the same principle that lies behind the street votes concept. As such, is it not simply the case that for all the hype around the clause, it does little more than adjust the electorate for neighbourhood development orders from the neighbourhood level to the street? If that is the case, should we view the intention to introduce a new street votes system as an admission that NDOs have failed to achieve the objectives that the Government set for them, and what makes the Government think that street votes will be any more successful as an initiative?

Secondly, we should be told why the Government believe that a street is the appropriate spatial area for the powers. The Minister mentioned that it might give residents a greater sense of control but, further to the question I just put to him on neighbourhood development orders, is the choice of a street as the appropriate spatial area related to evidence that the size of the electorate involved in approving NDOs is the reason that initiative has not been taken up more extensively? Do the Government have any reason to think that street-level democratically approved codes will be utilised more extensively than NDOs?

Thirdly, we need to know what the Government believe the impact of street votes will be on housing supply and affordability. It stands to reason that successful street votes are likely to lead to substantial value uplifts for those properties that use the planning permission secured as a result. If a street votes to permit mansard roof storeys to be added to existing terraces, the homeowners who take advantage of that will increase the space within, and value of, their properties. However, I struggle to see how the benefit that those homeowners will gain from the new system will be shared in any way by those who do not already own their own home.

Street votes are unlikely to contribute much, if anything, to new housing supply. In practice, how many residents are likely to organise themselves to secure new powers to provide for infill development on their street? I suggest not very much. If, as seems more likely, street votes are largely used to add space and value to existing properties, the system could end up making it harder for first-time buyers to get on the housing ladder. Can the Minister therefore tell us whether the Department has modelled the likely impact of a street votes system on housing supply and affordability, and whether it is likely to exacerbate existing housing inequality? If not, why not, and will they do so before we get to Report and Third Reading?

Fourthly, local planning authorities deserve an indication of how the Department will assist them financially to carry out the new demands that will be placed on them as a result of the introduction of a new street votes system. We have already debated in previous clauses the parlous state of local planning authorities when it comes to capacity and resources. We have considered the new burdens placed on them as a result of numerous measures included in the Bill. If a street votes system is introduced, the Government must ensure that councils are given sufficient resources to oversee it.

We cannot have a situation, as we do at present with neighbourhood plans, where the cost of sending a plan to referendum nearly always outstrips the amount that local authorities can claim from central Government to hold them. The Government must also ensure that we do not replicate the problems experienced in the uptake of neighbourhood plans, with only affluent communities able to take advantage of them. What resourcing can local authorities expect to run a new street votes system? What steps will the Government take to ensure that less affluent communities are able to take advantage of it?

Fifthly, given the concerns expressed that street votes could prove to be an extremely divisive measure to relations between neighbours on a street, we deserve some sense of how the process might work. Will there be a minimum number of residents in any given street required to bring forward proposals to extend or redevelop properties on it, or can a single resident do so? If it is the case that a single resident can submit a proposal, what safeguards are in place to ensure that local authorities do not constantly have to put different proposals to a referendum of residents on a street?

Surely a vote should not pass if a significant minority of residents on a street are opposed to it. I think the Minister mentioned a large majority, but what does that mean? What threshold will apply to a street referendum? Are the Government minded to adopt the recommendation, made by Create Streets, that it be at least two thirds of residents on the electoral register, or Policy Exchange’s suggestion of at least 60% of votes cast? We all know that nothing gets as bitter as a dispute between neighbours, so I would like the Minister to respond to my questions and tell the Committee that the Government’s thinking when it comes to the process by which planning permission via this new system will be secured.

Finally, we need to know how a new street votes system will interact with local development plans and the Government’s wider housing and planning policy objectives. It is an obvious question, but could the Minister confirm that any street votes proposal will have to be in conformity with a local development plan in order to proceed to a vote? I think he mentioned that the new proposals must be examined: does that mean they need to be compliant with a local development plan in order to move to a vote?

How will a street votes system work in an area with a neighbourhood development order already in place, or a design code adopted as part of it? Again, will any proposals need to be found to be in accordance with an existing NDO or design code before it can go forward? Will the new provisions that the Bill puts in place for neighbourhood plans to ensure that they consider climate change mitigation and adaptation apply to street vote proposals, and will similar safeguards be put in place as those that clause 89 provides for in relation to neighbourhood plans, ensuring that street votes cannot be used to block development from taking place?

The sheer volume of questions provoked by this placeholder clause not only illustrates how absurd it is that we are being asked to approve it, but highlights the very real risk that a badly designed system could have a detrimental impact on local authorities, communities and those struggling to rent or buy a home of their own. We do not intend to vote against the clause, partly because we are not opposed to the principle of trialling a new street votes system, and because we believe, as I said, that one is unlikely to be utilised to any significant degree. However, while I appreciate that the Minister will not be able to set out the full details of the system that the Government wish to introduce using the powers in the clause, we expect answers to the basic questions that I have put to him, as it is not reasonable to ask that we simply nod through an expansive placeholder clause of this kind without them.

Tim Farron (Liberal Democrat, Westmorland and Lonsdale)

This short placeholder clause has all the hallmarks of a post-it note stuck on the A board by the boss on an away day that nobody had the courage to say was silly. The boss has gone now, so we could just take it off the whiteboard. The Government are trying to think about democracy and involving people in a hyper-local way in planning. Let us be generous and say that that is commendable. I will not vote against the clause either, but to have a placeholder clause, with a total absence of detail, seems very peculiar. The Conservative-led Local Government Association talks of its fears about the risk of

“stifling the production and implementation of local plans.”

That will need to be answered very clearly in any further work on the clause.

There needs to be some clarity on the specific requirements that will need to be met in order for a street to vote in favour of or against a proposal. If we are to go ahead with this, surely it is right to do some learning via a pilot process before we roll it out everywhere. Not only do I understand but I am ahead of the Government when it comes to desiring to involve local people in a genuine democratic way. Other members of the Committee are as well. We have given the Government, through the Committee, opportunities to do just that. The hon. Member for York Central tabled amendments on a deliberative planning process, and this morning I sought to give the Government the opportunity to give communities power over their own housing stock, to ensure that they preserved an appropriate amount for permanent dwellings. Those were rejected, but we will have a referendum on Terry and June’s new garage.

As the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich indicated, we are all seriously in favour of local democracy, but I am concerned that the proposal will potentially be very divisive, and that we have not thought it through. We reject genuine local control and go for this instead. It feels like a triumph of the trivial over the useful. There are other questions that we could ask. How do we define a street? Does the 6-mile-long Kentmere valley count as a street? If we were serious about this, we would not have a post-it note on the whiteboard. Either fill it in or take it off, but I am sceptical.

Rachael Maskell (Labour/Co-operative, York Central)

I will add my scepticism to the comments that have already been made. I have so many questions about the clause. When a clause throws up the number of questions that this one does, the Government should withdraw it. I understand that they want to involve communities, but there are many ways of doing that far more comprehensively. I do not know whether the Minister’s constituency is like mine, but people are saying that they want involvement and consultation; they are certainly not hammering at my door in order to have a referendum, vote or whatever we want to call it over a particular commodity. They want good planning put in place.

We have been discussing the opportunity for people to have a real voice in things, as in the situation that we have, with whole swathes of my city bought up by people trying to turn it over to Airbnbs. If they buy a number of properties on a street and have a monopoly on that street, could they push through developments? That would mean they are exploiting the opportunity being set out by the Minister in the legislation. Indeed, people in the surrounding area would have no say whatever. That is open to abuse without tighter controls in the legislation.

This measure is a way of democracy-washing the Bill: we are taking away significant powers through the national proposal from the Minister, under which the Secretary of State could impose planning decisions on communities, but then saying, “By the way, you can have a vote on an extension on your street.” That democracy-washing approach does not wash with those on the Labour Benches. We want something more enduring that involves more debate, listening and engagement to get an outcome that is right for communities. The Minister must answer these questions.

This feels very much like the Minister is saying, “Children, you can vote on something on your street, while we grown-ups get on with the big development plans.” It is those plans that will affect whole swathes of the community, perhaps through national development management strategies taking over the big decisions, while people can only vote on an extension—or not—on their street.

We need to think about the context in which we want communities involved in planning—which we absolutely do—and decisions made. But this democracy-washing simply does not wash with me or my Labour colleagues.

Mark Hendrick (Labour/Co-operative, Preston)

I call the Minister to respond on Terry and June’s new garage.

Marcus Jones (Conservative, Nuneaton)

I am pleased that you know who Terry and June are, Sir Mark, because I fear that even some members of the Committee do not remember “Terry and June”. [Interruption.] The Government Whip is professing not to know who Terry and June are, although that might not absolutely be the case.

I thank hon. Members for their comments and views on street votes. As I said at the outset, this is a placeholder clause, and I have heard their views. The overriding idea is to provide further tools to local communities in the spirit of trying to help local people shape their communities and to have flexibility at a very local level.

On the particular questions asked in Committee, it would be right for me to write to hon. Members, because their questions were specific and detailed. Clearly, it is important to consider them more carefully to provide that level of detail, given the stage in the process we are at with the clause.

Clause 97 - Crown development

Mark Hendrick (Labour/Co-operative, Preston)

With this it will be convenient to consider that schedule 9 be the Ninth schedule to the Bill.

Marcus Jones (Conservative, Nuneaton)

For a long time, Crown development was not subject to planning permission. In 2006, that changed, and a new route to seek permission for nationally important and urgent Crown development was introduced under section 293A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Crown development includes development on land owned by the Government and carried out by the Government, as well as land owned by Her Majesty and by the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall. It also includes works to prisons and the military estate.

However, since its introduction this route has never been used. It takes too long to deal with truly urgent Crown developments—it can take months—and when responding to crises Government Departments have used other measures in the planning process, such as permitted development rights and special development orders. Those may be appropriate in some instances, but they take time to get in place and may not be suitable, in particular for a one-off special development that is urgently needed within weeks.

Clause 97 seeks to update this urgent route using two new faster, more proportionate routes to obtain permission for Crown land development. The objective of these reforms is to ensure that planning permission can be granted in a timely and proportionate way for the delivery of nationally important Crown development. The Government believe that, given the national importance of these developments and the unique nature of Crown land, the Secretary of State, who is democratically accountable to Parliament, is best placed to grant planning permission for these developments, rather than individual local planning authorities.

The first route, set out in proposed new sections 293B and 293C, is tailored for exceptional development. It is a new streamlined process to secure planning permission for development that is of national importance and required urgently. For these cases, the application would be submitted to the Secretary of State, but there will be limited statutory procedural requirements, to allow decisions on truly urgent and nationally important development to be made in a matter of days, rather than months, as is the case now.

This route would be used only in the most exceptional circumstances, where development is needed urgently in response to, or in preparation for, a crisis. For example, it could be used for development needed on Crown land to accommodate an influx of refugees or to develop medical centres in the event of a pandemic, or for biosecurity measures such as processing or checking imports entering the country, in circumstances where food or other essential goods are in short supply.

We recognise that that might cut across greater community engagement and local decision taking, which is why this route will be used sparingly and only where it is clear that there is an urgent need for an accelerated decision in the wider public interest, and where development cannot be delivered through other planning routes.

Government Departments proposing such development will have to demonstrate that it is needed urgently and is of national importance, and we will set out guidance on these matters. We would also strongly encourage early and meaningful engagement between all parties before any applications are submitted. Only if the Secretary of State agrees that a proposal meets this high bar will it be able to be considered. Local authorities and other bodies, such as service providers and statutory bodies required to inform a quick decision, will be consulted, and local communities will be notified when applications are submitted.

The second route to permission, covered in proposed new sections 293D to 293J, is intended for development on Crown land where the development is considered to be of national importance but is not urgent. For example, this may include a new prison facility or substantive defence-related development. For these cases, the application would be directly submitted to the Secretary of State, and an independent planning inspector would first consider whether it was of national importance.

Where such a development is not considered of national importance, it can be rejected and directed to the relevant local planning authority to consider. Where it is considered of national importance, it can be considered by the independent inspector, who would consider it in the same way as a conventional planning application. The inspector would consider the application on its planning merits, and decisions would be made in line with the new plan-led approach set out elsewhere in the Bill. As with a conventional planning application, there will also be public consultation and engagement with local communities, and their views will be considered. This process should provide more certainty and should be quicker than if the application was subject to a local planning authority and then to appeal or was called in for determination by the Secretary of State.

Given the national importance of these developments and the unique nature of Crown land, the Government believe that the Secretary of State, who is democratically accountable to Parliament, is best placed to grant planning permission, rather than individual planning authorities. These routes to permission are crucial to enable nationally important development to be considered in a timely and proportionate manner and to enable quick decisions on exceptional developments that are needed to respond to moments of crisis. As I said, since its introduction, this route has never been used, as it takes too long to deal with truly urgent Crown developments. We could not use it during covid to secure one-off temporary permissions for vaccination centres, and nor can we use it to secure permission to respond to other crises that we may face in the future. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

As the Minister outlined, clause 97 of the Bill inserts new sections into the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to provide for two new routes to apply for planning permission in respect of the development of Crown land in England—that is, land in which there is a Crown or Duchy interest. In the case of either route, the provisions in the clause will allow the appropriate authorities to apply for planning permission direct to the Secretary of State, rather than being subject to the same requirements and the same application processes as any other person undertaking development.

In such circumstances, the Secretary of State must notify the local planning authority whether or not they intend to decide the application. If they opt to determine it themselves, they can approve it conditionally or unconditionally or refuse it. They have to consult the local planning authority to which the application would otherwise have been made, but the authority would have no right to veto it.

The policy paper accompanying the Bill portrays the clause as a means simply to

“provide a faster and more effective route for urgent and nationally important Crown development”,

but we are concerned that, in practice, its effect is likely to be far less benign. Specifically, we are concerned about the implications of introducing such an open-ended measure, in terms of both removing appropriate and necessary limits on the exercise of Executive power and denying communities a chance to express views about development in their area and to signal their consent or opposition.

We appreciate fully that there are emergency situations where it is necessary to expedite the planning application process to facilitate essential development, and the construction of the seven Nightingale hospitals during the pandemic to provide critical and step-down care for patients is probably the best recent example—the process exists by which they could come forward, and they did. However, the broad scope of the provisions in the clause, which do not provide for any limit on the type of development that can be approved directly by the Secretary of State or in what circumstances, means that it could be used for a much wider range of proposals.

Let us take the system of large-scale accommodation centres that the Government have announced they intend to establish to house people seeking asylum while they await a decision on their claim. The system includes the “new, bespoke, reception centre” the Government plan to open on an ex-RAF base in Linton-on-Ouse in North Yorkshire for up to 1,500 people—a development that the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) has raised serious concerns about on a number of occasions.

The Committee will know that the Government have variously opened, or signalled their intention to open, centres accommodating—I use the term “accommodating” very loosely—asylum seekers in Penally in Pembrokeshire, Napier in Folkestone, Barton Stacey in Hampshire and in the shadow of Yarl’s Wood in Bedfordshire. All the sites were either on, or proposed for construction on, Crown land. All have been subject to controversy and, in the case of Penally and Napier, legal challenge—not least because of the lack of consultation with local communities in the areas where they have been, or were proposed to be, situated.

Rachael Maskell (Labour/Co-operative, York Central)

I have very much been involved with the community around Linton-on-Ouse. The fact that there has not been any proper consultation on transportation issues or on the impact on the local community has caused real concern that the Government will just press ahead with these developments without considering those issues. Does my hon. Friend agree that a more thorough, thoughtful process needs to be put in place? Also, should we really be offering refugees this type of accommodation? They are clearly in a desperate situation and need community to be wrapped around them, not to be isolated away from people and services.

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

My hon. Friend gets to the heart of the matter. Our concern is that the powers provided for by the clause will facilitate precisely what she suggests: the driving through of centres such as the one in Linton-on-Ouse, regardless of their impact on the people placed in them or the local communities in which they are situated.

My understanding—the Minister is welcome to correct me—is that in establishing Penally and Napier, the Government sought to rely on schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, which relates to permitted development rights. In the case of Napier, the Home Secretary granted herself permission to extend the life of the facility for a further five years, without any public consultation, by using a special development order provided for by delegated legislation. In a judgment handed down on 24 June 2022, the High Court ruled that decision unlawful.

Why have I explained that history at length? Because it is difficult to be aware of that history and not assume that the powers in clause 97 are being introduced to provide a more definitive way of securing planning consent for development on Crown land, such as for asylum centres, irrespective of the harm that such centres might cause for those placed in them, or their impact on local communities, who under the clause will be denied any right to influence a decision taken by the Secretary of State without public consultation.

I listened carefully to the Minister, who was quite clear that the powers will be used only in “moments of crisis” and in “exceptional circumstances” when there is a clear and urgent need to do so in the wider public interest. The Minister can correct me, but I see nothing in the Bill defining “exceptional circumstances”, “issues of national importance” or a “clear and urgent need”. Labour feels strongly that it is essential to insert appropriate safeguards into the clause to ensure that there are limits to the use of these powers and that minimum requirements are in place to secure some measure of consent from affected local communities. Without a firm commitment that such safeguards will be introduced at a later stage, we believe that the clause needs to be removed from the Bill. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Tim Farron (Liberal Democrat, Westmorland and Lonsdale)

I agree that the clause is too much of a blank cheque for the Government. The Minister said in support of the clause that the powers are for emergency use only, but if that is the case, he needs to set out far more specifically the terms for their deployment.

Members have spoken about asylum centres and the powers being a potential route to securing such sites. My concern is for those who are seeking asylum and going through that process. Having visited Napier barracks, I can tell the Committee that those who work there are good people who do their best to provide for the people staying there, many of whom have suffered huge trauma as a result of unimaginable experiences that we have never been through ourselves. There is no doubt, however, that that kind of camp-style site is no place for people who have escaped dreadful things and sought asylum. They are dealing with trauma and mental health issues, and have experienced appalling things. We are seeking to help them—I hope, given that the majority of people who make claims are genuine refugees and will, in time, be given the right to settle here—but how do these places help them to immerse and integrate themselves into society? That is just an aside on one of the potential uses of the clause and why it is particularly dangerous for those people, who are the most vulnerable in our society.

If we care about democracy—we are talking about levelling up and giving communities power—the Bill should not contain such an open-ended clause that seeks to undermine that power. I can understand why a Government would need emergency powers in some circumstances, but they should specify them, because otherwise the clause looks like overreach.

Marcus Jones (Conservative, Nuneaton)

It is clear that the current route for urgent Crown development is not fit for purpose. Since its introduction in 2006, it has never been used, as it does not allow for quick decision making when a truly urgent decision is required.

When responding to crises, Government Departments have used other measures in the planning process, as we have discussed. Those include permitted development rights and special development orders, which may be appropriate in certain circumstances, but which take time to get in place and may not be suitable, particularly for a one-off special development that is urgently needed within weeks. We have discussed issues relating to the pandemic that may well have been better tackled had we had such provisions.

Clearly, the situation is different for non urgent development, which will go through a new procedure that will follow all the public consultation requirements. The Government have been clear that the new powers will be taken only in exceptional circumstances. On that basis, I commend the clause to the Committee.

Clause 98 - Minor variations in planning permission

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I beg to move amendment 114, in clause 98, page 114, line 21, leave out lines 21 to 28.

Mark Hendrick (Labour/Co-operative, Preston)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 115, in clause 98, page 115, line 20, at end insert—

“(12A) In relation to an application for planning permission that is made to, or is to be determined by, the Mayor of London, a reference in this section to the local planning authority is to be read as a reference to the Mayor of London

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

Clause 98 is relatively straightforward, in that it simply makes provision concerning minor variations to planning permission, allowing for greater flexibility to make non-substantial changes that would not be possible at present without the submission of multiple applications by various different routes. We broadly welcome it: the change it will give effect to is long overdue, and it will simplify arrangements currently in place that were only ever intended as a short-term holding position. However, we believe that amendments 114 and 115 are necessary to ensure that the clause works as intended by resolving two issues of concern.

First, current arrangements ensure that if a variation to planning permission is sought, whether prior to completion or post completion, the circumstances of the day are taken into account when determining the section 73 application. That includes the policies in place at the time and any other material considerations. As drafted, clause 98(7) suggests to us that the circumstances at the time of the original grant of permission would be the framework for determining applications in future. We are concerned that this would mean, for example, that if a new local plan had been adopted since the original permission, that plan—which might, for example, include more stretching environmental standards—could not be applied in deciding whether or not to grant the section 73 application.

Similarly, many section 73 applications relate to the number of residential units or to floor space. As drafted, we are concerned that the decision maker would not be able to revisit the viability information or amount of affordable housing provided by the scheme, potentially creating a significant loophole that enables the avoidance of key policy requirements. We believe local planning authorities should be able to consider up-to-date planning policy and/or guidance when determining such applications to guard against adverse consequences, such as the prevention of increases in affordable housing or the application of more ambitious sustainability policies. Amendment 114 therefore proposes the removal of subsection (7) from the clause.

The second issue of concern relates to those powers devolved to the Mayor of London concerning strategic planning applications. As the Minister knows, the Mayor has powers to become the decision maker for strategic planning applications subject to certain provisions. However, we are concerned that the Bill as drafted only provides for the Secretary of State’s call-in powers, leaving a vacuum in relation to the mayoral powers. Amendment 115 therefore inserts new language after clause 98(12) to ensure that the powers of the Mayor of London to call in applications in accordance with the terms of the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 are taken into account. I hope the Minister will consider accepting both amendments.

Marcus Jones (Conservative, Nuneaton)

First, I want to thank the hon. Gentleman for his proposal in amendment 114, which seeks to remove subsection (7) of proposed new section 73B under clause 98. The effect of the amendment would be to broaden the scope of planning assessment and allow local planning authorities to reconsider the principle of development established under the existing permission to which the variation is sought under proposed new section 73B.

The purpose of the reform is to provide a clearer process for enabling sensible and practical changes to be made to planning permissions that are not possible under the existing framework without the submission of multiple applications under different routes. I am sure we can agree about the importance of ensuring that the planning system is flexible, responsive and proportionate to changes of circumstances to facilitate the delivery of appropriate development.

We are resisting the amendment because it goes against the overarching objective of allowing permitted schemes to evolve where changes are required without having to start the planning application process again. If we were to agree to the amendment, local planning authorities would be empowered to look again at the principle of development for the proposal and refuse it, even though the application may only be for a minor variation. That would undermine the new process and make it more difficult for developers to manage minor change through the planning system.

The ability to amend an existing grant of planning permission is an important flexibility afforded by the planning system. Clause 98 seeks to improve the current framework for varying a planning permission by providing a clearer, more certain and proportionate process for planning authorities, communities and applicants.

Post-permission changes to respond to, among other things, specific design matters and external factors is a common and critical part of the development process. Enabling flexibility for minor changes to development can support delivery in changing circumstances. In the majority of cases it is not proportionate or reasonable to require a new planning application or revisit the principle of development.

Under clause 98, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich can be assured that the new power has been drafted to ensure that planning permission under the new power will be permitted only where the local planning authority is satisfied that its effect will not be substantially different from that of the existing permission. Local planning authorities have the power to determine whether changes would constitute a substantial difference from the existing permission on a case-by-case basis. That allows for consideration of local and development-specific context.

The “substantially different” test would be assessed against the existing planning permission to ensure that the cumulative impacts of changes to a permission are acceptable in planning terms. In addition to consideration of the existing permission, the planning merits of the proposed change may include consideration of any previous changes made to the existing permission.

I can also assure the hon. Gentleman that the process for applications made under proposed new section 73B will be set out in secondary legislation. We will consult on the details of publicity and consultation for the applications following the passage of the Bill, but I want to emphasise that we will seek to engage widely with the sector to ensure that the new route works. I therefore hope that the hon. Member will withdraw amendment 114.

Amendment 115 would clarify that section 73B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 applies to the Mayor of London, in his capacity as local planning authority, when determining applications of potential strategic importance. It is similar to the provision under subsection (12) of that Act for the Secretary of State when he is determining applications under that section.

Although I agree with the principle behind the amendment, it is more appropriately addressed by a consequential amendment to section 2A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. That Act provides that if the Mayor is determining applications of potential strategic importance, he is the local planning authority, and the references to local planning authorities in new section 73B should apply to him.

It is likely that a number of consequential technical amendments will need to be made to provisions in the Town and Country Planning Act as a result of the introduction of section 73 provisions to vary permissions. We propose to use the powers set out in clause 191 to do that. This specific example is one such amendment that we could consider. In view of my explanation, I respectfully ask the hon. Member to withdraw his amendment.

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

Amendment 114 raises an extremely technical matter. I listened carefully to the Minister and I will revisit what he said. I hope he understood that I mean that planning applications must evolve when changes are required. The amendment does not seek to ensure that the principle of development is ever revisited, just that when minor variations are applied for, that updated planning policy and guidance are taken into account. We think that is important. I will go away and study carefully what he said.

On amendment 115, I am grateful for the clarification about where these matters might best be dealt with. I am grateful that the Minister will go away and give that further consideration. We think that the Mayor’s powers need to be formally taken into account when making the changes that the clause makes. On that basis, I am happy not to press either amendment, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Marcus Jones (Conservative, Nuneaton)

On the basis of the debate on amendments 114 and 115, I commend the clause to the Committee.

Written evidence reported to the House