New
Clause
25
Use
Class Orders
‘(1) The local
planning authority may, when it deems it appropriate to do so, report
on the effectiveness of the Use Class Orders available to it in the
Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order
1987.
(2) In a report published under subsection (1)
(“the Use Class Order report”), the local planning
authority may submit to the Secretary of State proposals for new Use
Class Orders to be made under sections 55(2)(f) and 333(7) of the Town
and Country Planning Act
1990.
(3) The Secretary of
State shall consider the Use Class Order report within four weeks of
receiving it and
may—
(a) order that new
Use Classes be made under sections 55(2)(f) and 333(7) of the Town and
Country Planning Act 1990 to reflect proposals made in the Use Class
Order report, or
(b) reject the
proposals made in the Use Class Order report and publish the reasons
for that rejection in at least one local newspaper circulating in the
relevant area.
(4) Where the
Secretary of State uses her power under subsection (3)(b) the Secretary
of State shall have a duty to meet with the local planning authority
within four weeks of the Secretary of State’s
decision.’.—[Dan
Rogerson.]
Brought
up, and read the First
time.
Dan
Rogerson:
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second
time.
The
new clause deals with a subject very close to my heart, and I know that
it is close the hearts of a number of hon. Members across the House who
are experiencing problems with the unsustainable increase in second
homes in their constituencies. The issue that most applies to me, as a
local Member of Parliament, in terms of use class orders, is that of
second homes. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and
Lonsdale (Tim Farron) would say the same. There are also related issues
that the hon. Member for City of Durham (Dr. Blackman-Woods) has raised
with regard to “studentification”. A number of other hon.
Members are working with her on that issue in urban areas where there
is great pressure on local housing stock from the growing student
population.
The
new clause would give local authorities the power not to create use
class orders of their own accord, but to work with the Secretary of
State to see whether they could be used as part of a solution to a
particular local problem. As the hon. Member for Beckenham has said in
the past, the drafting of Opposition proposals may not be entirely
watertight, so I am looking for anything that the Government can offer
in terms of an intention to re-examine this
issue.
This
matter has been raised in a number of reports. My hon. Friend the
Member for Truro and St. Austell (Matthew Taylor) is working with the
Government at the moment on affordable rural housing. Elinor Goodman's
commission, which reported a while ago, mentioned the potential for
using planning powers to restrict the growth in the number of second
homes. I have debated this issue in the past when speaking on housing
for the Liberal Democrats. At that point, the Member for Beckenham
raised concerns about seeking to control the market through use class
orders and said that people had a right to own second homes. I am not
seeking to restrict people's rights in that regard, but we have to take
account of the fact that there are areas where a particular class of
property, which is not currently defined within a use class order, is
distorting the local housing market or the local environment in some
way.
I
shall illustrate my point by mentioning the population statistics on
Cornwall, which has seen a lot of development over the past few
decades. The population of Cornwall
has grown a great deal, which is recognised among other things by its
getting six Members of Parliament, not five, at the next general
election. However, closer examination shows that the population in some
parishes is declining. Housing is being built in those areas—for
example, Padstow, which has become famous because of a certain resident
and his culinary expertise, has had development—but the overall
population statistics show a decline. That is because there is a
growing number of second homes. At the moment, although there may be
tax issues to consider in respect of increasing the burden on a second
home owner, that is not a disincentive to someone who has the financial
wherewithal to have one. So the historic centres of towns and villages
are increasingly deserted in terms of local residents. That situation
is not sustainable. It has a knock-on effect on local schools and local
services, particularly out of the holiday season. A number of coastal
communities in Cornwall—and, increasingly, inland
communities—are being affected in this
way. Elinor
Goodman's report talks about examining use class orders as a way of
distinguishing between a second home and a home that is being used as a
full-time residence. There is great merit in pursuing that. I therefore
seek some assurance from the Minister that that suggestion is not being
entirely discounted and that it will be examined for the future. I do
not believe that just looking at tax alternatives will solve this
problem. We can continue building affordable housing and increasing
development, but if the housing market continues to be distorted by the
bias towards second homes in some areas, we will not save those
communities for the future. I hope that the Minister has some
good news for
me.
Mr.
Llwyd:
I support the new clause. This is another matter
that has exercised hon. Members in the House for some time. I
introduced a ten-minute Bill 10 years ago, proposing exactly the same
thing. The Government are now concentrating on affordable homes. I am
afraid that second homes pose a great difficulty, because where there
is a preponderance of them we find that villages are dying, local
amenities are being cut and basic services, such as local schools, post
offices, village shops and garages, for example, are fast disappearing.
I fully support what the hon. Member for North Cornwall is
trying to do with the new
clause.
The
problem of rural depopulation was recognised by the House not so long
ago, when we legislated to allow rate relief for rural retailers. That
was welcome, but it is not enough, because the second homes factor
exacerbates existing problems. They are socially divisive, as they are
empty for most of the year and are therefore of little benefit to the
community. They do not assist the viability of village retailers,
because their occupants are only there for a few weeks or months of the
year. They also bring with them social problems. The usual scenario is
that second homes are purchased by those who can afford them—the
owners often earn salaries that are many times more than the average
salary of those in the local community, and they are able to pay the
asking price without quibble—while locals are left in the wake,
wondering when, if ever, they will be able to enter the property market
and buy a house in their own community, very often in an area in which
they were born and brought up.
5.30
pm
The
problem is evident in villages in Kent, the Cotswolds, Somerset,
Cumbria, Cornwall and throughout the UK. In Wales, the problem has an
added dimension, because it directly dilutes the indigenous culture and
language, which is of great concern to all those who hold them dear. My
answer is that there should be a use class order for a property that is
not occupied throughout the year. The local planning authority could
decide, for example, what percentage of such homes is viable in any
given community. It would be unwise, if not silly, to legislate for a
certain figure throughout Britain, because that clearly would make no
sense. There are some seaside towns that, for the past century, have
had a huge number of second homes, which they have been coping with
reasonably well. However, some rural villages are dying because of the
preponderance of second homes. That is not just the view of the hon.
Member for North Cornwall and myself. Many hon. Members throughout the
House are coming to that view now.
The Select
Committee on Welsh Affairs reported back in 1994 that redefining the
use class order is one tool that could be used to assist in delivering
affordable housing in rural areas. It is tragic to see villages dying
on their feet and, worse still, youngsters being unable to live in the
villages in which they were born and brought up. Such an order is not
the absolute answer—I am not saying that if such a move was
accepted by Government, all affordable home problems would disappear;
that is absolute nonsense—but it would be a great step forward.
I remember when the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon was a
Minister in the Department of the Environment. He was persuaded of the
efficacy of such an order in helping to create more affordable homes.
Unfortunately, there was further deliberation in Cabinet and the
measure did not go forward. Therefore, the suggestion is not an
eccentricity of the hon. Member for North Cornwall and his fellow Celt
from Wales. It is a real problem, and this is a real answer. It is not
the ultimate single answer, but it would assist the Government in their
stated intention of providing affordable homes for
all.
Mr.
Dhanda:
I do not know whether I should declare an interest
as someone who has dined at Rick Stein’s restaurant in
Padstow—and very good it was,
too.
Mr.
Benyon:
Very new
Labour.
Mr.
Dhanda:
I can promise the hon. Gentleman that it was long
before I became an MP. I am very sympathetic to the arguments of both
hon. Gentlemen, but I disagree with the use of use class orders,
because they are not the right vehicle or tool to achieve what they are
talking about for their communities. The principal issue in
categorising land for use class orders is whether there is a material
change in the use of land between one use and another, which we do not
get in the same way with second homes. There is nothing to distinguish
a first home and a second home in that
respect.
Dan
Rogerson:
The point has been made to me before. However, I
believe that there is a clear distinction between a house that is being
used as a
home and a house that is being used as a temporary luxury for people to
stay in. In fact, it has been regular practice for local authorities in
some areas to grant permission for a building to be occupied only for
holiday use, and not as a residence. This is just turning that round. I
am focusing on second homes here, but there may be wider applications
in other circumstances for local areas where a use class order could be
part of the solution. Second homes are just the example I am
giving.
Mr.
Dhanda:
That is useful, but use class orders are about
what distinguishes properties in planning terms. That is the
difference. Local authorities may well keep registers, and there may be
differences between first homes and second homes—the question of
where people pay tax, and so on. In planning terms, however, they are
not distinguishable. For example, a Woolworths and a WH Smith are in
the same class in planning terms, whereas fast food restaurants are in
a different class. That is a fundamental difference.
We do look at
use class orders, consult with local authorities and make changes.
Although I am sympathetic to what the hon. Members are saying about
their communities, with regard to planning—which is what the new
clause, the clause and indeed the Bill are about—first homes and
second homes are indistinguishable. That is why I must say to the hon.
Gentleman that the new clause is not
relevant.
Dan
Rogerson:
I am disappointed by that response, though not
entirely surprised, as I have heard it before. I was, however, present
at a debate in Westminster Hall in which the Secretary of State for
Innovation, Universities and Skills spoke about the issue of
studentification, to which I referred
earlier.
Mr.
Dhanda:
As I understand it, in planning terms, my right
hon. Friend is right, because there is a definition of houses in
multiple occupation. We are going to do more work later in the year
around defining use class orders to do with houses in multiple
occupation. That will not, however, remedy the problem with
distinguishing between first homes and second homes, by which I assume
he means wealthy people who live in one part of the country and have a
holiday home
elsewhere.
Dan
Rogerson:
During the debate to which I referred, we
discussed the issue of different uses within the residential category.
I am intrigued by the idea that there is a bigger difference between an
HMO and a house being used for full-time residency—which may
both be used full-time—than between those and a home that is not
being used as a residence but as a place where people can stay from
time to time. This requires further examination.
The hon.
Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy made an excellent contribution
describing in some detail the soul-destroying effects of second homes
on local communities. There may be other categories of which I am
unaware, in commercial application and so on, where planning
regulations and use class orders have not kept up with the way society
has changed. I believe there is potential for local application, in
consultation
with the Secretary of State, by piloting these sorts of things, which
can solve local problems, in local areas. As this is something I
believe in very passionately, I seek to test the Committee’s
opinion, and wish to press the new clause to a
vote.
Question
put, That the clause be read a Second
time:—
The
Committee divided: Ayes 2, Noes
9.
Division
No.
21
]
Question
accordingly
negatived.
|
