Clause
5
powers
to provide housing or other
land
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following: New clause 2— Restrictions on
powers
‘(1) Nothing in Part 1
shall allow the HCA to develop or facilitate the development of green
belt land.
(2) The HCA shall
not provide or facilitate the development of housing before
infrastructure has been provided or facilitated under section
7.
(3) Before exercising its
powers under sections 5 to 7 the HCA shall consult with the local
authorities in the areas where such powers are to be
exercised.
(4) In this section
“green belt land” shall be construed in accordance with
section 87(1)(e) of the Town and Country Planning Act
1990.’.
New
clause
13—Obligations
‘Before
exercising any of its powers the HCA
shall—
(a) consult with,
and have regard to the views of, relevant local
authorities;
(b) have regard to
the desirability of preserving gardens and urban green
spaces;
(c) have regard to the
desirability and practicality (in any particular case) of residential
development forming part of any development for commercial purposes
(adequately supported by suitable community, cultural and leisure
facilities);
(d) undertake
site-specific flood risk assessments before acquiring or disposing of
housing or other land and ensure that any new development undertaken or
procured by it is flood resilient and resistant, subject to a
presumption against any development on flood zones adjacent to rivers,
the sea and tidal sources;
(e)
in this section “green space”
means—
(i) land laid out
as a public garden;
(ii) land
used for the purposes of public creation;
or
(iii) an area of open space
which benefits wildlife or
biodiversity’.
New
clause 14—Powers: regard to market
conditions
‘In exercising its
power to acquire or dispose of housing or other land the HCA shall have
regard to market
conditions’.
Grant
Shapps:
If I do not stand up quickly you might railroad
through this one as
well.
The
Chairman:
Order. The Chair does not railroad through
anything.
Grant
Shapps:
I
apologise.
The
Chairman:
Order. The job of the Chair is to take the
feeling and the mood of the Committee and to respond
accordingly.
Grant
Shapps:
With that, Mr. Gale, I have to say that
spending all day going through clauses 1 and 2 has no doubt moved the
Committee to move briefly through clauses 3 and
4.
The
new clauses refers to the powers and restrictions on the powers of the
newly formed agency. The clauses concentrate on the central concern,
that we certainly
have on this side of the Committee, about the power that will be vested
in the HCA. The HCA will, of course, collect the powers of both English
Partnerships and the Housing Corporation, but rather than just combining
the two sets of powers in one neat location, the new agency will have
additional powers. Because of the way in which the legislation is
drafted, it is not clear where some of those powers
end. In
particular, the legislation is not specific on the protection of the
existing green belt in terms of the extent to which it can be redefined
and changed to meet objectives through what are effectively tricks,
such as claiming that it will be protected and even enlarged, but in
fact deleting and moving parts of it to achieve a particular objective.
New clause 2 addresses some of those points and also mentions the power
of the HCA—the new overarching agency—over local
authorities, and particularly the partnership between the HCA and local
authorities.
In
the evidence session, the Minister for Housing went to some lengths to
try to reassure us that it was a benign agency, which would use its
powers responsibly and carefully by consulting local authorities. The
excellent example of Milton Keynes was drawn on as an example of where
local authorities were happy to work in partnership and in some cases
to provide powers to an outside body, in that particular case along
with English Partnerships. Our concern is that if one simply reads the
clauses and powers within the Bill, it is perfectly plain that in the
wrong hands the agency would be all-powerful—it would have
awesome power. In order to have an agency with powers sufficient to
ride roughshod over local opinion, two factors are needed—or
perhaps only one. It would certainly require a Minister who was
prepared to have the agency act in a particularly overpowering manner,
and perhaps a chief executive who was prepared to use the powers
contained in the Bill in a manner that was not in the interests of the
local community.
Although it
may not be the intention of the present Minister for Housing or the
newly appointed chief executive to use the powers in that way, the
danger is that a future Administration might do so. It comes down to
deciding what is the best way to deliver the Government’s
objective of building 3 million homes by 2020—of building far
more affordable homes and catching up on the 1980s and 1990s, when more
social housing was built every year than over the past decade. If those
objectives are to be met, it seems to us that it ought to be based on
the bottom-up rather than the top-down
principle.
The
new clauses seek in some way to introduce into the Bill the principle
that local communities know best, that they can improve the chances of
delivery instead of diminishing them. Rather than being a problem,
rather than being nimbys and rather than being the ones who always
object to developments, local communities could assist with the whole
process of development, if they were given the right incentives. If
they were trusted and able to contribute, they could help the
Government to meet those objectives faster and more efficiently. If the
resources were made available, as proposed in new clause 2, many of the
objections of local communities would
fall.
In
saying that, I draw on my constituency and my own experience. The
Government want to build 10,000 new homes. A start has already been
made: 2,000 have
been built and we would be happy to have 6,000. However, building 10,000
when only last week the closure of the local hospital was announced
does not sit well with local people. The problem with the powers given
under these early clauses is that the Bill does not define the limits
of the HCA’s power. Effectively, communities would be constantly
overridden by the desire of the HCA to get on with things, instead of
taking account of the feelings of the community on such things as green
space and infrastructure by planning at a much more local level. That
is an overview of the things that new clause 2 seeks to
achieve. New clause 13
deals with something about which I think both sides of the Committee
agree. I represent the constituency of Welwyn Hatfield, which includes
Welwyn Garden City, a new town that is often studied as an example of
good town planning. I was recently in Poundbury, Prince
Charles’s new town, and it used Welwyn Garden City as an example
of good town planning. One aspect of good town planning is that one can
work and live in the same area. That cuts congestion and is more
environmentally friendly, and it was being done decades ago.
The
provisions of new clause 13 indicate our belief that the HCA ought to
consider the extent to which it is practical for industry, business and
living accommodation to be provided in the same areas. Studies have
been undertaken in many parts of the world, notably through some
incredible experiments with that approach both here and in the United
States. In the States, some of the most progressive planning thinkers
have been looking again at the principles behind the new
town—the traditions of Ebenezer Howard—and trying it out
again, which makes perfect sense. In Poundbury, one quarter of the
buildings are business-related and industrial. One would not know it to
look at the place. There are no smoking factories. People can literally
walk to work, which reduces congestion and is environmentally friendly.
It would make sense, through new clause 13, for the HCA to have regard
to the possibility, desirability and practicality of including
developments for commercial purposes within residential
areas.
We
are also concerned about the proper assessment of flood risk, and the
new clause would again cover it. I do not need to remind anybody of the
problems that flooding caused last year. A huge amount of new housing
is proposed on flood plains, not least one quarter or even one third in
the Thames Gateway. If one is going to build in flood-risk areas, every
possible precaution should be taken and examination made to protect
those houses. The new clause would help to focus attention on flood
risk.
Finally, new
clause 14 would prevent the HCA—that huge body with overarching
powers—from distorting the local market. Reading the Bill, we
perceive a danger that has in fact happened in reality. I have some
examples if the Minister is interested. The danger is that the power to
control the marketplace—the size and ability to decide to pick
up a plot of land—can distort the area, its housing requirements
and its market conditions.
We have seen
the danger with English Partnerships and housing associations. It
happens at this time of year, every year, because if there is money in
the budget, it is used to pick up land so that it has been spent before
the April deadline. When that happens, local market conditions are not
always taken into account, so the
new clause is a call to ensure that this great new body, this huge
agency, with a massive budget and the potential to shape the places in
which it operates, does not push out the normal activity of other house
builders and people who are trying to provide facilities for the
community. Instead, as the new clause says, when the agency acquires
and disposes of housing and other land, it should have regard to the
exercise of its powers and its impact on the surrounding market. The
new clause is a plea to ensure that the HCA does not skew the
market.
The
Chairman:
Order. Just before we proceed, Sir George, may I
remind the Committee of our arcane procedures? New clauses 2, 13 and 14
will not be moved now. If the movers of any of those clauses wish to
move them, they must indicate that to the Chair, and we will call them
at the appropriate time. No motion other than the stand part motion
will be taken now.
Sir
George Young:
I wish to raise one particular point on
clause stand part. It relates to clause 5(1), which
states:
“The
HCA may provide
housing”.
Will the
Minister explain in what circumstances the HCA itself will provide
housing? The Housing Corporation, to my knowledge, has never provided
houses; it has done what is provided for in the next subsection, clause
5(2), which
is,
“facilitate the
provision of housing”.
In
other words, the Housing Corporation has funded housing associations,
and they have provided the houses. I do not see why the HCA itself
needs the powers to provide
housing.
The
Minister may say that English Partnerships had the power, which is
simply being transported in the Bill, but English Partnerships has
never had the direct relationship with housing associations that the
HCA will have. Given that we do not want centralisation and want to
devolve, why is the HCA being given powers to develop, own and provide
housing itself? I see its role as facilitator, enabler and resource
provider for other people who are going to do that.
When the
Minister replies to my hon. Friend, will he also explain why we need
subsection (1) and in what circumstances the powers might be
used?
3.15
pm
Andrew
George:
The intention behind the new clauses is by and
large laudable—protecting gardens, for example, and ensuring
that the HCA’s activities have regard to the market. Having said
that, on new clause 14, the HCA and the bodies that provide
land—as the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire has said,
it will largely be the housing associations—will have a
perpetual impact on the market. Given that the purpose of the Bill is
to assist the Government in reaching a substantial target, we cannot
ignore that fact. One assumes that it will have regard to the market to
ensure that it maximises outcomes, rather than the other way
round.
What
concerns me about the new clauses is that they are primarily suitable
for another Bill—a planning Bill. Sympathetic as I am to the
objectives behind them and the sentiments expressed and implied in
them, I cannot
support them because their implications mean they are for a planning
Bill. I am keen for this Bill to allow the HCA to count in its housing
figures properties that are currently used as second homes but that
would be changed into permanent residences, but that would require a
change in planning law. The protection of gardens would require a
similar change. I am sympathetic towards those objectives, but this
Bill is not necessarily the best vehicle to achieve
them.
Mr.
Wright:
I welcome your ruling on clause stand part
debates, Mr. Gale. The substantial debate that we had this
morning took into account the provisions of clauses 3 and 4, which we
moved past
quickly.
Clause
5 is extremely important, because it sets out the power to be given to
the agency to facilitate the provision of housing and other land. That
power is central to the HCA’s ability to meet the
Government’s target set out in the housing Green Paper and
contribute to the additional 3 million homes by 2020. As we have said
before, the power brings land, including public sector land, and
housing into one national agency. To ensure that the HCA can contribute
to the target, we need to allow it to be a direct provider of housing
should the circumstances require
it.
On
the point that the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire rightly
made, the HCA will have the option of providing housing directly, but I
anticipate that that will not be the primary way in which it will
support housing growth. I shall give an example. We would want the
agency to be able to step in if a developer went bust, rather than lose
its investment or the benefits that would have accrued had the
development been delivered. Without that specific power, the agency
would not be able to take such a
step.
Sir
George Young:
But in practice, if that happened, would not
the Housing Corporation nominate a local housing association to run it,
rather than step in
itself?
Mr.
Wright:
As I have said, the number of times that that
might happen would be remarkably low, but it is still important that
that power is contained in the Bill to ensure that if something like
that happens, the delivery of 3 million homes is not compromised. That
is an important
point.
Grant
Shapps:
Will the Minister explain, then, why the Housing
Corporation does not have those same
powers?
Mr.
Wright:
The whole point of establishing the HCA is to
bring land and regeneration under one powerful agency that consults
local authorities and works in conjunction with them to ensure that
housing need is assessed and delivered. The powers in this part of the
Bill will help to do
that.
The
definition of “provide” in the clause includes
improvement or repair. That is to enable the agency to step in to
ensure that tenants are not left to suffer in sub-standard
accommodation if their landlord fails. As with the direct provision of
housing, we do not expect
the agency to act as a landlord as a matter of course, but it should not
be unable to do so if the need arises. Clause 5 is
necessary to enable the agency to provide land under any circumstances.
In order to unlock the development potential of a site and gain a large
proportion of affordable housing on that site, the agency might have to
provide a strip of land, perhaps to give reasonable and safe access to
the site. Without the power to provide land, that would be impossible.
Clause 5 also empowers the agency to facilitate the provision of
housing or other land, which will be essential to its work. The agency
must be free to assemble sites and make them available to other bodies
to deliver development. Without the power to facilitate the provision
of housing or other land, it would not be able to do
so.
New
clauses 2 and 13 would introduce requirements to consult that would
serve to slow down or even stop the agency from delivering on the
ground. New clause 2 would add an additional level of protection to the
green belt, but that is unnecessary because the green belt is already
heavily protected and nothing in the Bill will change that. Those
further restrictions could block all development involving the agency
on the green belt. It is not our intention that the agency will be
involved in developments on the green belt as a matter of course, but
neither do we want restrictions that do not apply to any other
body or would-be developer to apply to the agency.
The green
belt is very important, and has helped to restrict urban sprawl as much
as possible. The proportion of land that is designated as green belt
has increased since 1997, but green belt is a planning designation, not
a reflection of the importance or quality of biodiversity. It is
important to protect the countryside, as we have discussed, but green
belt is not, strictly speaking, a means of doing that; it is a planning
designation. As the Prime Minister has rightly said, we do not intend
to change the provisions on green belt, which has been a helpful
planning policy tool for the past half century. It has served us well
and will continue to do so.
Let me
reassure the Committee by reiterating that the creation of the agency
will not make development on the green belt any more likely. The agency
will be bound by planning legislation, like any other would-be
developer. Any development would take place only with appropriate
planning permission, and the planning process will require
consideration of whether there is sufficient justification for that
development.
New clause 2
would also impose an unnecessary restriction on how the agency might
deliver housing. To deliver its objectives, the agency must meet the
needs of communities. If the agency provided housing developments
without appropriate infrastructure, those developments would clearly
fail to meet the needs of the communities within them and the agency
would therefore fail to deliver on its objectives. Clause 7, which we
will discuss later, is very important for infrastructure and, with your
permission, Mr. Gale, I should like to discuss this issue in
that debate.
On new clause
2, we do not think that it would help the practical delivery of housing
to dictate to the agency how it must structure its developments. We
consider that the order in which a development progresses is best
determined by those delivering it, and we do not think that it would be
helpful to impose in legislation a universal order, which would tie the
agency’s hands.
Furthermore, an explicit requirement in the Bill for the agency to
provide the necessary infrastructure before delivering housing would
severely compromise its ability to negotiate with developers or other
bodies over such provision. Why would an organisation provide any
infrastructure, if it knew that the agency would have to do it anyway,
under this Bill, before development could progress? That would not help
anybody. New
clause 13 would introduce a number of additional requirements on the
agency prior to its exercising its powers, which, in some cases, would
do no more than create an extra layer of bureaucracy and overburden the
agency. It is unnecessary. The new clause would also provide for a duty
to
“consult with, and
have regard to the views of, relevant local
authorities”.
In many
cases, the relevant local authority will be directly involved anyway,
and further consultation would be a waste of time. For example,
development undertaken by the agency would still require planning
permission, which in most cases will be determined by the local
planning authority.
The
obligation to have regard to the preservation of gardens and urban
green spaces is met in clause 34, which enables the agency to
contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. We discussed
that at length earlier. Any development undertaken by the agency will
have to accord with national and local planning policies, and it will
be made clear in the organisation’s tasking framework that we
expect high environmental and sustainability
standards.
The
obligation to have regard to mixed-use development sits at the heart of
the agency’s objectives, which are to develop and regenerate
land. That forms an important element in national planning policy, to
which the agency will need to have regard. It will also have the power
to provide infrastructure, which will include the building of community
facilities. The final point made by the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield
was about undertaking
“flood risk assessments before
acquiring or disposing of housing or other
land”,
and the
introduction of
“a
presumption against any development on flood zones adjacent to rivers,
the sea and tidal
sources”.
I do not know
what effect that would have in my constituency of
Hartlepool.
As
I have already mentioned, the agency will have the same obligations in
relation to developments and flood risk as any other developer. I
reiterate that clause 34 allows the agency to contribute to and
facilitate the achievement of sustainable development. The Committee
has made it clear that it would like the Government to strengthen that
clause, and I am very amenable to
that.
New
clause 14 would require the agency
to
“have regard to market
conditions”.
That is a
particularly curious new clause. Whether or not the housing market
cools, affordability will remain a problem to be addressed. Regardless
of the condition of the market, regeneration will remain a priority for
this Government. We still need to increase the supply of homes that are
badly needed for our people, which is why the Government have announced
the 3 million new homes by 2020.
Grant
Shapps:
Just to clear up the confusion, the problem is
that the HCA will have powers to buy up land when, perhaps, a small
housing association might be about to do the same—that happened
in my own constituency. Will the Minister look again at the ways in
which the HCA could end up distorting the market? That is already
happening with the current set-up, and I am concerned that it will get
embedded in the Bill as well. Perhaps he will undertake to look at
evidence that I could
provide.
Mr.
Wright:
I am grateful for that clarification. During our
consideration of clause 10, when we will talk about best consideration
for market value, we might discuss the hon. Gentleman’s point,
which is an important one. We need to strike a balance, which we can do
during our consideration of that clause. I do not think that the
agency’s proposed compulsory purchase powers will affect the
housing market. The valuation of land for compulsory purchase will be
the same as by agreement—the market value of the land in the
absence of the
scheme.
The
new clauses have no value in providing for additional protection or
meaningful consultation, but they would delay necessary delivery and
increase bureaucracy. I cannot believe that to be the outcome that the
hon. Gentleman intends. Should the new clauses be moved, I hope that
they will be withdrawn fairly quickly. I wish to see clause 5 stand
part.
Question
put and agreed
to.
Clause
5 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
The
Chairman:
Just before we proceed, I need to indicate to
the Committee something of which the Front-Bench Members are already
aware. Should we get to schedule 2, Government amendment No. 17 will be
taken, as it is relevant. Ministers have requested that Government
amendments Nos. 18 and 19, which relate to schedule 3, be taken under
schedule 3. I have agreed to that. So there will be a slight change to
the order set out on the selection
list.
| 
