 House of Commons |
Session 2007 - 08 Publications on the internet General Committee Debates Housing and Regeneration Bill |
Housing and Regeneration Bill |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:Hannah Weston, Committee
Clerk
† attended the
Committee
Public Bill CommitteeTuesday 15 January 2008(Morning)[Mr. Roger Gale in the Chair]Housing and Regeneration BillFurther written evidence to be reported to the HouseH&R 10 Places for
People Group
Clause
9 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Schedule 2Acquisition
of
Land
10.30
am
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local
Government (Mr. Iain Wright):
I beg to
move amendment No. 17, in schedule 2, on page 127, line 37, leave out
from ‘agreement’ to end of line 38.
It is good to see you back in
the Chair this morning Mr. Gale. Schedule
2 contains technical, but important, provisions that primarily apply
the standards of compulsory purchase legislation, which apply in most
cases of compulsory acquisitions.
The
Chairman:
Order. The Minister has just indicated that he
wants to refer to Schedule 2; he will obviously do so in the context of
the Government amendment. I am perfectly happy to have a stand part
debate running concurrently with the debate on the Government amendment
if hon. Members would like to do so. [Hon.
Members: “Yes.”] In that case, we will treat
this as a stand part debate as well.
Mr.
Wright:
Thank you for that guidance and clarification,
Mr. Gale, and I apologise for any confusion caused to the
Committee. I want to stress that these provisions are not new, as they
are modelled on the provisions for the Urban Regeneration Agency. The
legislation sets out what the agency must do before it compulsorily
acquires land or new rights over land. The legislation applied by
schedule 2 also provides the gateway to the compensation code, which
specifies the manner in which the price paid for land is to be agreed
and governed. That is an amalgamation of statutes and about 150 years
of case law.
Schedule 2
ensures that the Homes and Communities Agency is subject to the same
statutory procedure as most other bodies that have the power to
compulsorily acquire land. The procedure includes appropriate
safeguards, such as the opportunity to make representations, and allows
public inquiries to be held. It also ensures that the usual additional
safeguards that apply to commons, open spaces and allotments
apply.
Schedule 2 allows private rights of way
and the laying down of equipment to be extinguished on completion of a
compulsory acquisition. That practical provision ensures that the
agency will be able to use the land it acquires, free from any
interference from private rights over that land. Again, it is not a new
provision, but is modelled on an equivalent provision for the Urban
Regeneration Agency.
Government
amendment No. 17 is a simple, technical amendment that ensures the
correct application of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965. It allows the
Act to apply to all acquisitions by agreement, so far is applicable, as
is the position for the Urban Regeneration Agency. That is important
because the Act is the gateway to the compensation code that I
mentioned earlier, and therefore ensures that appropriate compensation
will be paid.
Alistair
Burt (North-East Bedfordshire) (Con): Our interest in the
amendment is technical, and we seek clarification, particularly of the
wide powers that we are discussing. We note from the memorandum that
the schedule and the powers are modelled on similar
provisions for the Urban Regeneration Agency. We are entitled to ask
precisely what that means, as the question comes up rather often. We
want to know what is being changed and why. If the amendment is a
straight lift from another provision, we should know. If, however, it
is modelled on such a provision, something may be hidden behind that.
The Homes and Communities Agency’s combined powers not only to
acquire but to develop land could lead to a conflict of interest not
present in the powers of the Urban Regeneration Agency.
That is a common theme in this
set of provisions—the combination of the HCA’s powers
make it incredibly powerful. We therefore require genuine clarification
of the extent of those powers and, when we come on to other clauses, we
will seek guidance as to how they will be used. The Minister may not
have the answer at his fingertips, but how often have the powers been
used? Are they used on a regular basis, have they been used many times,
or are they available in theory but not necessarily used in
practice?
There are
three brief areas that I wish to explore. First, why and to what extent
do the powers differ from those previously granted? Secondly, does the
Minister acknowledge that the combination of powers available to the
Homes and Communities Agency makes the use of those powers a cause of
concern? Clarification of the way in which they will be used would be
helpful. Thirdly, how often have those powers been used in the past,
and how often does he expect them to be used in
future?
Mr.
Robert Syms (Poole) (Con): I would like to make a general
point. The subject of compulsory purchase is a complex one, but we live
in a country of owner-occupiers who tend to relate everything that
happens in their area to the price of their house. We are sometimes
parsimonious in compensating people affected by development, and we
would meet less opposition to worthy schemes if we were a little more
generous at the beginning in compensating people whose properties are
subject to a compulsory purchase order. That could
unlock certain projects and speed up their development. I am not an
expert on the subject of compulsory purchase, but will the agency be
constrained in what it can offer
when it purchases a site? That probably relates more to another
measure—the Planning Bill—that is being considered in
Committee today. Is there a formula for such purchases? Is it fixed or
can it made more generous to speed up a housing development and obtain
the
benefits?
Mr.
Wright:
We have had a short and sweet debate on an
interesting and important clause that deals with the subject of how we
fulfil the agency’s regeneration objectives.
The hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire made a number of points and
I hope to be able to answer all of them effectively. He asked to what
extent the HCA’s powers are different from those of the Urban
Regeneration Agency. They are more or less—I know that that is
not a satisfactory phrase—modelled on the Urban Regeneration
Agency’s objectives. The subject that I think that he is trying
to tease out—and I am happy to have this debate—is the
brownfield restriction. I believe that the hon. Gentleman and his party
have tabled amendments to a later clause on the issue. The brownfield
restriction applies to the URA’s objectives, but it is not
proposed that it should apply to the HCA’s powers, because
limiting its compulsory purchase powers purely to brownfield land would
reduce its ability to deliver regeneration and housing where they are
needed, regardless of where that is in
England.
The
Government’s policy is that brownfield land should be developed
before greenfield land. That has been our policy for a number of years,
and it has served us extremely well—something like 74 per cent.
of all development is on brownfield land, and we would like that figure
to increase. The point that the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire
made about the agency’s compulsory purchase powers was made by
the hon. Member for Poole, too. Importantly, we are not talking about a
vacuum and the agency’s compulsory purchase powers can be
exercised only within the usual statutory framework for compulsory
purchase. The Secretary of State has to authorise any compulsory
purchase orders made by the agency. We discussed in previous sittings
the agency’s wide-ranging powers to achieve its objectives of
securing the most appropriate housing, regeneration and development in
England, and it will operate within that framework. The power that we
are debating today can be referred back to the Secretary of
State—again, that is extremely important.
The hon.
Member for North-East Bedfordshire asked how the provision was modelled
on previous provisions. As I said, it is not a straight lift. We are
trying to modernise legislation—it is a question of the language
used for drafting measures—and the provision was developed with
modern drafting procedures. The objects of the agency are wider than
those of the Urban Regeneration Agency, so the application of the
powers will be slightly different. I hope that that reassures the hon.
Gentleman . He asked how many times the powers had been be used. I do
not have the precise numbers to hand, but I can write to him and other
Committee members.
I
can give the Committee examples of compulsory purchase order powers
that have been used by English Partnerships that have worked very well.
For example, in Gardiners Lane South in Basildon, a CPO was proposed to
acquire under-used and ineffectively used land so that a comprehensive
regeneration scheme
could be delivered. In Liverpool—as capital of culture, it is on
our minds at the moment—a CPO was utilised to acquire land
necessary to facilitate the Kings Waterfront scheme, as well as land
that will be used to construct and maintain a pedestrian bridge over an
adjacent estate. Again in Liverpool, at the Lime Street
gateway project, English Partnerships used CPO powers
to provide the necessary regeneration. The area was regarded as being
in need of regeneration because of vacancy, under-use and ineffective
use, and the Gateway site is a prominent location that could be better
used.
Again—and I am looking
at my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich—in
the Greenwich peninsula, EP has made a CPO under the terms of a legal
agreement with development partners. There are therefore examples of
ways in which the new Homes and Communities Agency could use CPO powers
to exploit land that would not be developed by the private
sector.
Alistair
Burt:
The Minister may need to write to the
Committee to clarify this, but in the specific examples he mentioned in
relation to Liverpool, how will the HCA’s powers dovetail with
the pathfinder programme and the various powers given
to it? Problems have arisen in Liverpool with the time scale for the
acquisition of property, and some areas—specifically
Anfield—that were intended to be developed quite quickly have,
in fact, waited a long time for development. How will the HCA’s
compulsory purchase powers work where there is an existing pathway
programme?
Mr.
Wright:
I should be happy to allow the hon. Gentleman to
intervene again to clarify something. When he says the pathfinder
programmes, does he mean urban
renewal?
Mr.
Wright:
The whole aim is that the agency should work in
consultation with local authorities and relevant organisations on
issues such as housing market renewal. We should not forget that the
agency will have responsibility for that function. I would imagine that
there will be a dovetailing of the things that the hon. Gentleman
mentioned. The wider point about using CPOs to utilise under-developed
land is an important one, and I hope that he would accept that
regeneration vehicles need compulsory purchase powers to fulfil their
objectives.
Alistair
Burt:
May I pick up on something the Minister has just
said, because we may have missed something in last week’s
announcement? Is he saying that it is proposed that responsibility for
the housing market renewal initiative, which was criticised by a
parliamentary Committee, should be taken away from the Department and
given to the Homes and Communities
Agency?
Mr.
Wright:
Yes, that is certainly the intention, and I
thought I made that clear in earlier sessions. I apologise if I did not
do so.
I hope that I
have answered all the questions that were asked. As I have said, these
are important powers
for regeneration vehicles, and they will be used
within the statutory planning framework and with the direct consent of
the Secretary of State. It is important that the agency has them so
that it can fulfil its objectives, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman
supports the
amendment.
Amendment
agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended,
agreed
to.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2008 | Prepared 16 January 2008 |