Housing and Regeneration Bill

moved Amendment No. 51: 51: After Clause 7, insert the following new Clause— ““Obligations of the HCA (1) Before exercising any of its powers the HCA shall have the following obligations— (a) to consult with, and have regard to the views of, the local authorities in whose area they propose exercising their powers; (b) to have special regard to the desirability of preserving gardens and urban green spaces; (c) to undertake site-specific flood risk assessments before acquiring or disposing of housing or other land and ensuring any new development undertaken or procured by it is appropriately flood resilient and resistant provided that there will be a presumption against inappropriate development on flood zones adjacent to rivers, the sea and tidal sources. (2) In this section, ““green space”” means— (a) land laid out as a public garden; (b) land used for the purpose of public recreation; or (c) an area of open space which benefits wildlife or biodiversity.”” The noble Earl said: I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 53 and 77. Amendment No. 51 is largely a probing amendment. I have written in brackets on my notes, ““depending on the Minister’s responses””. It comes in three parts. The first paragraph obliges the HCA, "““to consult with, and have regard to the views of, the local authorities””." In other words, it must listen to local authorities. There have already been concerns that the powers of the HCA are too extensive, as discussed on the previous group of amendments, and come at the expense of local authorities. On Second Reading, many noble Lords from all round the Chamber addressed the dangers of top-down government and imposing the will of the Government on local communities. I know that the Minister has recognised the importance of local government and local people in the decision-making process, and on Second Reading stated the importance of local involvement. She and Sir Bob Kerslake recognised that at the useful pre-Committee stage meeting. We have also heard excellent contributions from the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, on the need for strong leadership and local involvement when dealing with the regeneration of urban areas. Again, that was fully acknowledged by the noble Baroness, so I ask myself in what circumstances there would ever be a need for top-down decision by the Government or the HCA. Is it all just scaremongering? There is an area with potential for top-down decision-making, and that is the 10 proposed eco-towns. The Housing Minister, Caroline Flint, has promised a full consultation so that nothing will go ahead without the backing of local communities. What constitutes the backing of local communities? What if local communities do not want an eco-town? Will the Government, through the HCA’s powers, insist that they go ahead and carry on regardless on the basis that the Government know best? There are already tens of thousands of anti campaigners— 60,000 or 70,000 at the last count, and I believe the number is increasing by 2,000 a day—and the prospect of legal challenges against the building of eco-towns across England. The outcome of the Housing Minister’s full consultation will determine the final 10 sites, but what criteria will be applied to make these judgments? How many locals will have to sign a petition saying no before the Government will think again, or will the approval of the Minister, the developer, the land owner and one man and his dog swing the argument in favour of the new town? Will the Minister’s judgment ride roughshod over local feelings? Will the Government carry on regardless on the basis that they know best? That is the concern. Critics have claimed that the plans expose the eco-towns scheme as a ruse for allowing housing development to avoid normal planning controls. If I were cynical, I would mention that at least half the 15 sites belong to the MoD, so the Government stand to make hundreds of millions of pounds from the sale of the land. By overriding the planning system, if that is what happens, the sites’ values rocket to development land values. The Government therefore have a vested interest in developing these sites. According to a recent article in the Sunday Telegraph, the developers of the proposed eco-town site at Curborough, near Lichfield in Staffordshire—incidentally, a former airfield owned by the MoD—have already submitted plans to the local authority, but the plans apparently fail to match the standard set out in the Government’s eco-town prospectus. The article then lists half a dozen or so areas where they fall short. Will the Government, through the HCA, require or encourage the local authority to insist on the developer raising its standards to comply with the Government’s eco-towns prospectus, or will the developer get away with it simply by promising to come back later with environmental features to add to the proposals? If it goes to appeal, will the inspectors back the local authority, or will the overriding desire for new housing water down these green standards? Surprising as it may seem, I am not against the principle of eco-towns, provided that they have the support of the locals who have to live with them and provided that they are truly green and sustainable. This part of the amendment is aimed at clarifying how the Government are going to play it. After full consultation, will the Government, through the HCA, listen to local concerns and work with them to achieve the desired number of eco-communities, whether on the Government’s preferred sites or on other sites preferred by the locals, or will the Government bash on regardless and ignore local concerns? The second paragraph of the amendment would place an onus on the HCA to recognise, "““the desirability of preserving gardens and urban green spaces””." I am sure that many noble Lords are aware that often the biggest complaint that people have about new developments in their area, especially in more rural areas, is the so-called phenomenon of garden-grabbing, when a perfectly good house sitting in its own gardens is demolished and a number of new houses are crammed into the space. This can really change the character of an area. Whereas it might be appropriate for urban areas, it is absurd when applied to villages, as such overdevelopment can spoil the way people feel about their street or neighbourhood. It looks cramped and is incongruous. I believe that the term ““brownfield development”” first appeared in PPG3 on housing in 2000. Behind the document was a desire to force planning departments and developers to look at the use of previously developed land before greenfield sites. To this end, local authorities were given targets to meet for the percentage of new housing that was built on brownfield sites. I think it is generally agreed that the principle is good, but, as with everything, the devil is in the detail. It is difficult to argue against the redevelopment of a rundown industrial site in the middle of an urban area, which has the double benefit of sorting out the eyesore and protecting an alternative piece of greenfield land. The definition does not stop there. The most contentious issue has always been that brownfield now includes garden land. This has led to the garden-grabbing headlines. When the PPG was introduced, it was clear that the development of brownfield sites was almost impossible to stop. The priority that has been given to such sites was so high that it was almost impossible to mount an argument that would result in the plans being turned down on appeal. If it was brownfield, it got permission—and very soon. With costs being awarded on appeal, local planning authorities had little option but to approve schemes of garden-grabbing. The pendulum has swung too far. Schemes that did not enhance the appearance of the area were driven through in this way. Breckland Council, of which I have been a councillor for the past 10 years, has noticed lately that the preservation of the character of the area is now being given more weight by inspectors and we have won some appeals recently on that basis. These tend to be edge-of-settlement sites, which is a good sign, but in village centres, which are equally valuable, developments are still being allowed on appeal. These spaces are equally important to the character and the appearance of the area, not only in visual terms but also for biodiversity reasons. The green corridors through our towns and villages are being lost, with the obvious degradation of the ecology of those areas. The subsequent effects on wildlife are well documented and, at the same time, there can be a reduction in the quality of life and sense of place that people have enjoyed for years. Incidentally, there was an item in the news last Friday saying that a recently completed two-year study has concluded that people’s health is improved by being within a green or rural area, including general feelings of well-being and an actual lowering of blood pressure and feelings of stress. I hope the Minister will feel able to look at this subsection with a view to declassifying gardens as ““brownfield”” and agreeing to preserving urban green spaces. Our Amendment No. 77 would place a duty on the HCA to monitor and promote the re-use of genuine brownfield sites. The third sub-paragraph in Amendment No. 51 deals with flooding and I can link it with Amendment No. 53, which can be viewed as an alternative clause. Both would place the Homes and Communities Agency under an obligation to undertake full risk assessments of flooding of any new development. As a result of last summer’s rain, 55,000 properties were flooded, 7,000 people had to be rescued from the flood waters, 5,000 businesses were flooded, 850 schools were damaged, over 100,000 acres of agricultural land were flooded, 13 people died, 600 were injured, almost half a million people were without water or electricity and transport was brought to a standstill; 6,000 people still cannot get back into their houses and l,400 are living in caravans. Last week, we saw flash flooding in Somerset. We are told by the experts that these are not going to be one-off events but part of a worsening trend. Over the past 10 years almost 10 per cent of all dwellings built were in designated flood risk areas and, in 2005 alone, over 21 major planning applications were approved against the Environment Agency's guidelines. There is no doubt that we need to take greater care over where we build our houses and if they have to be built on flood plains—such as the Thames gateway—then more thought ought to be going into how we build them. In response to last summer’s flooding, the Government—I think it was Defra—appointed Sir Michael Pitt to assess what went wrong, what we might do differently as a country and to identify what changes need to take place. Pitt says that flooding is a ““blind spot to society”” and, "““that we should be as serious about flooding as we are when it comes to terrorism or pandemic influenza””." An interim report on his findings has been published with 15 recommendations and over 70 interim conclusions. His final report will be published later this summer, once he has had responses from government and non-governmental bodies. I raise the Pitt report as there is an excellent section in it relating to new buildings and how we might do better as a country to avoid the traumas of flooding. Although the review reports to Defra, it has a direct bearing on the Department for Communities and Local Government, and the HCA’s remit in particular. I have no doubt that the Minister and the HCA will be looking closely at the final report with Defra and others to see how the recommendations can be implemented as a matter of urgency as part of their joined-up government. One of the conclusions is that the automatic right to connect surface water drainage of new developments to the existing sewerage systems should be removed. This automatic right comes from Section 106 of the Water Industry Act 1991, so this part of the legislation will presumably need amending. The report also highlights the current complex responsibilities for flood risk management and the need for one overarching body to take responsibility. Currently, drainage management is fragmented among a number of bodies that include the Environment Agency, local authorities, water companies, internal drainage boards, the Highways Agency, British Waterways and private watercourse owners. When something goes wrong, it is all too easy for these bodies to point the finger at each other and say that one of the others is responsible. Indeed, the Secretary of State accepts that, "““a lot of disparate organisations have responsibility for different bits of the surface water drainage system””." A number of organisations, including the Environment Agency, I believe, supports having one body responsible for all aspects of flood risk. Incidentally, I understand that the Environment Agency has changed its policy from flood defence to flood risk management. Noble Lords will forgive the pun, but that is a watering down of its resolve in this area. Sir John Harman, the chairman of the Environment Agency, has written a response to the interim review conducted by Sir Michael Pitt stating: "““Some recommendations and interim conclusions require action from us in areas that are not covered by our current legal responsibilities””." He goes on to say: "““Urgent review and consolidation of flood risk management legislation will, however, be needed if your recommendations are to be turned into action. Consideration by Government of a new ""Water Bill is, in our view, vital to rationalise outdated legislation and to give full effect to your recommendations””." Here are just two examples of where the Government will need to amend existing legislation if they are serious about dealing with the risks of flooding. Chapter 4 of the Pitt review deals with the obvious concerns about the large number of properties currently at risk of flooding—95 per cent of Hull is at or below sea level—and the probability of further significant development in flood risk areas. He concludes that there is a need to strengthen and reinforce the provisions of PPS 25 and the building regulations to ensure that flood resistance and resilience measures are fully built into all new developments where necessary. The aim of proposed new subsection (1)(c) is to ensure that the Department for Communities and Local Government works with other departments and bodies to change the rules, regulations and legislation where appropriate, as recommended by the Pitt review as a matter of urgency, and to oblige the HCA to undertake full risk assessments of flooding to any new development. I beg to move.