| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 3 [Main powers in relation to land of the HCA]:
7 July 2008 : Column 597
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Andrews) moved Amendment No. 14:
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 13 [Power of Secretary of State to make designation orders]:
Baroness Andrews moved Amendment No. 16:
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 17 to 19 not moved.]
Baroness Andrews moved Amendments Nos. 20 to 24:
“( ) In deciding whether it is appropriate for the HCA to be the local planning authority as mentioned in subsection (1)(b), the Secretary of State must, in particular, be satisfied that making the designation order is likely to improve the effectiveness with which the functions of the local planning authority for the area or part are discharged.”
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 not moved.]
Clause 14 [The HCA as the local planning authority]:
Baroness Andrews moved Amendment No. 27:
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 28 to 33 not moved.]
Baroness Andrews moved Amendment No. 34:
(1) Subsections (2) to (6) apply where a designation order provides for the HCA to be the local planning authority for the whole or any part of the designated area.
(3) The statement of local involvement is a statement of the HCA’s policy as to the extent to which it intends to involve persons mentioned in subsection (4) in relation to the exercise by the HCA of functions conferred on it by virtue of the designation order.
7 July 2008 : Column 598
(6) In deciding its policy about the extent of involvement of persons mentioned in subsection (4), the HCA must, in particular, have regard to—
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 15 [Adoption of private streets]:
Baroness Andrews moved Amendment No. 35:
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 16 [Appeals against adoption of private streets]:
Baroness Andrews moved Amendment No. 36:
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 17 [Traffic regulation orders for private streets]:
Baroness Andrews moved Amendment No. 37:
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 21 [Powers to connect private streets to highways]:
Baroness Andrews moved Amendment No. 38:
On Question, amendment agreed to.
7 July 2008 : Column 599
Clause 24 [Loans by the Secretary of State]:
Baroness Andrews moved Amendment No. 39:
“( ) Loans under subsection (1) may be made on such terms and conditions as the Secretary of State considers appropriate (including provision for repayment with or without interest).”
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Andrews moved Amendments Nos. 40 and 41:
(ii) sums borrowed by subsidiaries of the HCA (other than from the HCA)”“(5) In this Part “subsidiary” has the meaning given by section 1159 of the Companies Act 2006 (c. 46).”
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 28 [Directions as to surplus funds]:
Baroness Andrews moved Amendment No. 42:
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 43A:
The HCA shall promote the re-use and reclamation of brownfield land and will monitor its use and publish its findings.”
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I apologise for Amendment No. 43 having been tabled in error. This amendment is shorter than the one spoken to in Committee by the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, who addressed mainly the back-garden issue, which is important, but did not cover the development and use of brownfield land. The amendment proposes an extra new clause, which would require the HCA to promote and monitor the reuse and reclamation of brownfield land and to publish its findings. The reason for tabling a shorter version of the amendment is to obtain from the Government positive—or even better—comments on the HCA’s promotion of the regeneration of brownfield sites.
The work of English Partnerships on the National Land Use Database and the national brownfield strategy has been important and should not be sidelined. One can see that the HCA will be under a great deal of pressure to deliver numbers and we are all aware that remediation, or simply reuse of land if work is not too extreme, is more complicated and perhaps more time-consuming. We are also aware of the pressures on greenfield sites and the great benefits of redeveloping brownfield, however it is defined; to my mind, it can include very small sites as well as bigger ones.
In Committee, the Minister said that regeneration would continue to be within the agency’s remit and that he did not want to tie up too much the specific managerial responsibilities regarding where the money
7 July 2008 : Column 600
8.45 pm
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, perhaps I may put a penn’orth in on the amendment. Promoting the reuse and reclamation of brownfield land is absolutely fine; I have no difficulty with that. The puzzle that I have is: when does land go from being commercially developed to being derelict and to being “brownfield”? I can think of one site not so far from me where development started but was never completed. Is that or is it not brownfield?
When the brownfield site concept started, it was quite obvious what such a site was, because there was much virtually derelict land and there were a lot of completely unused sites about the place. Some of them were arguable—hospital sites in greenbelts and that sort of thing—but development tends to be progressive. Industrial and commercial sites in particular are vulnerable and can go out of use. Are they immediately brownfield sites just because they happen to be out of use? Someone may come along and find a use for the buildings anyway and we may not need to redevelop them. At what point do we make the distinction between an unused site and a brownfield site? We need to think about that a little.
Baroness Ford: My Lords, the noble Lord has put his finger on a very important point. I recall having a lot of conversations when the surplus National Health Service portfolio was transferred to English Partnerships about whether a multi-acre former mental hospital site was genuinely a brownfield site. If my memory serves me right—I think that this speaks to the noble Lord’s point about a partially developed site or a used site—we classified previously developed land or brownfield land as land on which rates or some residential charge had been paid, or which had plainly, over a period, been used for some commercial or other purpose that generated income and where the land had been productive. That is probably not an entirely satisfactory explanation, but it distinguishes between a partial development and something that was genuinely used for a long while.
Practitioners increasingly interchange the terms “brownfield land” and “previously developed land”. Brownfield has a connotation of post-industrial use—gasworks, or whatever. That is certainly the image conjured up in my mind, whereas previously developed land can have different connotations. We have had numerous Questions in the House, even in the short time that I have been here, about whether disused airfields, for example, are brownfield land, previously developed land or whatever.
I am not sure whether that helps the noble Lord on the classification of “brownfield land”, but, if my memory serves me right, it is land on which some kind of taxable charge or local charge has been made as a result of the land being used productively. I am not sure whether it takes us any further, but I think that that is the correct definition.
7 July 2008 : Column 601
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I must confess that I have not revisited what the Minister said in Committee, although I well recall the debate to which the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, referred, about gardens. The subject is of such importance that the whole House should be grateful to the noble Baroness for having brought it back at Report, although my recollection—I am relying entirely on my memory—is that the Minister, in Committee, implied that the Domesday Book process was already being pursued. I hope that out of this short debate will come a clear picture from the Government of exactly what HCA will do in the brownfield area, because of its importance to the whole development process.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the amendment takes us back to those long wistful days in Committee but, wistful though they may have been, I am not sure that I can move the argument on that much further. We said in Committee that we felt that the amendment confused the brownfield argument. I think that it does, although I appreciate that it has been moved with good intent.
Existing government policy is set out in planning policy statement 3. It provides that previously developed land—in particular, vacant and derelict sites and buildings—is the priority for housing development. I guess that we could all fairly readily agree to that. It also sets a national annual target that at least 60 per cent of housing should be provided on previously developed land. Again, we raised the threshold when we first came into government. It is perhaps worth adding, however, that this does not mean the development of brownfield land at any cost. Indeed, PPS 3 advises that there is no presumption that land that has been previously developed is necessarily suitable for housing development.
In some cases, a greenfield site near to transport, shops and jobs may make for a more sustainable community and be more sustainable in other ways than a brownfield site. As the past leader of an urban authority with a lot of green space hard up to the urban fringe, I can see some sense in that argument. Clearly, access by car to those areas where families are not close to local schools bears some fair consideration. The HCA will be as subject to the policy in PPS 3 as any other body is, so a statutory duty of the nature suggested in the amendment is unnecessary and could add inflexibility, which would not help us greatly. A blanket duty to promote previously developed land at any cost could be counterproductive and could inhibit the HCA in fulfilling some of its objectives.
The amendment also refers to monitoring the use of brownfield land and would place a requirement on the agency to publish its findings. This part of the amendment is also unnecessary, as English Partnerships already has responsibility for the National Land Use Database for previously developed land. This responsibility will pass to the agency as a matter of course. The continuing management and development of the database is probably the practical solution to the problem that the amendment seeks to wrestle with and find an answer to. The database aims to provide an inventory of the national stock of vacant and derelict land and buildings, as well as of land and buildings in use with planning consent or the potential for redevelopment.
7 July 2008 : Column 602
The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, asked some pertinent questions about this issue. All I can usefully say is that brownfield definitions are set out in considerable detail in PPS 3. I am more than happy to add to the fascinating volume of correspondence that the Bill has already generated by responding to his queries about the various distinctions—queries that were well made. I hope that that answers the points that have been made and I trust that the noble Baroness will be happy to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I am never sure how much happiness comes into it. So I have confused the brownfield argument? Oh well. Of course we have PPS 3, but it is not a statutory duty. The hierarchy of duties and responsibilities is being mixed up quite a lot as we go on. PPS 3 does not have the status of a statutory duty and the Government can reissue it in a different form—I am not even talking about national policy statements. I hesitate to say that they can do so at whim, because Governments do not have whims, but they can simply get on and reissue it. The amendment seeks to get to the kernel of the issue. Moreover, PPS 3 does not extend to the second limb of my amendment about monitoring and publication. For that not to be necessary because the database for which English Partnerships has responsibility will pass on “as a matter of course” is my point, which is to make sure that it does. Whether or not I am happy, I at least see withdrawal facing me. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |