Housing and Regeneration Bill

I have Amendments Nos. 56 and 57 in this group, as an attempt to provide examples of the sort of circumstances in which it might be sensible for the HCA to dispose of land for less than it can get on the market. I am conscious that the Bill refers to the amount that may ““reasonably be obtained””. That is altogether too vague a phrase. What may be ““reasonably obtained””? Is it simply the amount of money you can reasonably obtain for open sale in the present market conditions? Or does it take into account exactly the kind of issues that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, usefully raised—this is a very useful set of amendments—that were referred to by my noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Ford? If the purpose of the HCA is to achieve regeneration, it has to be put in the same position as English Partnerships is at the moment. Looking at it from the other end of the tube at a very local level, I know that English Partnerships disposes of land for nothing, in effect, because it puts it into a regeneration package that the public sector can operate. However, the HCA may not be able to do that. I am probing what ““reasonably”” means and whether it involves taking account of these other factors, but if that is the case it should be made clear because the phrase ““best consideration”” suggests an approach based merely on economics. Therefore, my Amendment No. 56 is concerned with regeneration schemes and specifically the ability to dispose of land to local authorities that are involved in such schemes in partnership with English Partnerships, and with the HCA in future, as a means of enabling these schemes to go ahead. If the HCA has always to insist on obtaining the maximum value for the land, a lot of these schemes will never go ahead. I cannot believe that is what the Government intend. The wording of the relevant measure seems to be wrong. My Amendment No. 57 probes whether a reasonable consideration for land takes account of its existing planning status. It is one thing to say what that land is worth given its existing planning status, whether it be housing, industrial or amenity land. However, on the other hand we know that lots of companies in this country will buy land at its present value and ““land bank”” it on the basis of what they think might happen in 10 or 20 years’ time, or over a much longer timescale. Some land banking is very long term indeed. Companies may be prepared to pay over the odds for amenity land if they believe that they can get planning permission for housing on it in 20 years’ time. That is exactly what the big development companies do. They put that land in their land bank and register it in their accounts. The value of the land goes up, contributes to their profits and everybody is happy except the local communities because the land is occupied and owned by a company that may not look after it. The company may just sit on it in the hope that at some time in the future it may be able to develop that land. The purposes of the HCA should be considered as regards disposing of land to local authorities. Further, the HCA should take account of the existing planning status of the land as opposed to its possible planning status in 10 or 20 years’ time that speculative purchasers might take account of. If the HCA cannot dispose of land in appropriate ways to appropriate bodies for less than it can get on the open market, it will not be able to do its job.