Increasing the supply of affordable housing, which is at pitifully low levels, is a laudable aim. I agree with the hon. Member on that, and I therefore hope he can support our amendment 84, because it would achieve the objective in relation to the infrastructure levy by requiring charging authorities to ensure that levels of affordable housing are maintained at a level that, over a specified period, enables any given authority to meet the housing need identified in its local development plan, and I commend it to the House.
Turning to part 5 of the Bill, this concerns the Government’s proposed new approach to assessing the potential environmental effects of relevant plans and major projects—namely, environmental outcomes reports. Chief among several concerns we have about the proposed EOR system are the deficiencies of clause 122 in relation to non-regression safeguards. While we welcome the inclusion of this clause in the Bill as a means of constraining the use of the wider regulation-making powers in part 5, we are concerned that the clause as drafted contains a series of loopholes. First, use of the relevant non-regression provisions is entirely at the discretion of the Secretary of State. Secondly, the Bill stipulates that the principle of non-regression will only apply to the
“overall level of environmental protection”,
rather than specific aspects of it. Thirdly, the definition of environmental law used in the relevant subsection will limit the extent to which it can provide protection against potential future regression.
The Minister who responded to the debate on this issue in Committee provided some measure of reassurance as to why the clause is drafted in the way it is, but our concerns have not been entirely assuaged. We have tabled amendment 88 to ensure that the new system of environmental assessment would not reduce existing environmental protections in any way, and I look forward to hearing how the Minister responds to it in due course.
We want to see many other changes to the Bill. Among other things, we have tabled amendments and new clauses to ensure that the Government undertake a comprehensive review of the extension of permitted development rights since 2013; to allow local authorities to hold planning meetings virtually or in hybrid form; and to place a duty on local planning authorities to appoint suitably qualified chief planning officers.
Of particular importance to us is the need to ensure that the Bill fully aligns the planning system with the UK’s climate mitigation and adaptation goals. In Committee, Ministers argued repeatedly that existing local and national duties, requirements and powers are sufficient to ensure that the planning system responds as required to the climate emergency, yet that is demonstrably not the case, given that the system regularly throws up decisions that are seemingly incompatible with the need to make rapid progress towards net zero emissions by mid-century and to prepare the country
for the changes that are already under way. That is likely to remain the case until the Government produce clear and unambiguous national policy guidance, in the form of a revised NPPF, and legislate for a purposeful statutory framework to ensure genuine coherence between our country’s planning system and its climate commitments. New clause 98 would deliver the latter, and I urge Members to support it.
Before I turn to a number of the substantial Government amendments that have been tabled since the Bill left Committee, I will speak briefly to new clause 114. As you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, despite a notional majority of more than 80, the Government are developing an alarming habit of allowing national policy to be dictated by the demands of amorphous groups of their own Back Benchers. In the case of onshore wind deployment, the Government’s weakness in the face of such demands is all ostensibly to the good, because Ministers are now seemingly committed to amending the NPPF to finally end the harmful effective moratorium imposed on onshore wind since 2015.
However, the written ministerial statement published last Tuesday provoked more questions than it answered. For example, what criteria will Ministers specify to determine what qualifies as a demonstration of local support for onshore wind projects, given that there is certainly no clear indication that the Government are minded to bring consenting for onshore wind in line with other forms of infrastructure, as it should be?
To take another, there is the assertion in that statement that we need
“to move away from the overly rigid requirement for onshore wind sites to be designated in a local plan.”—[Official Report, 6 December 2022; Vol. 724, c. 9WS.]
What is meant by that? The Minister will know that sites do not have to be identified in local plans to receive consent for onshore wind deployment, but there is a strong presumption that they should be, and rightly so. If we are to strengthen our energy security, cut bills and reduce emissions, we need local authorities to proactively consider the opportunities within their boundaries for the deployment of all forms of renewable energy, including onshore wind generation.
Given the degree of ambiguity that now surrounds the Government’s position, it is hard to escape the conclusion that the Secretary of State has simply sought to buy himself the time he needs to get this legislation passed by alighting on a form of words nebulous enough to temporarily appease the warring factions within his party.
New clause 114, in contrast, is clear and unambiguous. It would require the Government to remove the onerous restrictions that the NPPF places on the development of onshore wind projects, and it would ensure that local communities have their say via the planning process, without imposing a uniquely restrictive consenting regime upon only this form of renewable energy generation. It would ensure that local authorities must at least explore the desirability of renewable energy deployment, including onshore wind, as part of the local plan preparation process, and I commend the new clause to the House.
Turning finally to a number of the Government amendments that have been tabled in recent weeks, Government new clauses 49 to 59 insert an entirely new part into the Bill, as the Minister said, that enables
community land auction pilots to take place. As many Members will be aware, such auctions are not a novel concept, having been first proposed as far back as 2005. On paper, the premise appears entirely sensible. Landowners would have the freedom to voluntarily come together to grant options over land in the area of a participating local planning authority, with a view to it being allocated for development in the local plan. On the assumption that the option value would be significantly less than the market value for housing development, and that landlords will release said land at the lower price to realise the guaranteed short-term return, the authority in question will be able to exercise or sell the option, capturing some of the increased value uplift and using it to support local development.
In practice, the idea is riven with flaws. First, the circumstances for which this theoretical arrangement is designed—namely, a collection of small and completely substitutable land parcels with multiple landowners—bears little relation to the characteristics of the actual land market across the country.
Secondly, the idea that auctions will drive down land prices in the absence of any element of compulsion is frankly for the birds. One need only look at Transport for London’s disappointing experience with the development rights auction model to see how the proposed arrangement will fall short in that regard.
3.15 pm
Thirdly, if the arrangement were proven to be workable in practice it would almost certainly only be an attractive proposition in areas with significant housing demand and high land values, in all likelihood on greenfield land rather than more complex brownfield sites, thereby compounding the inequalities between and within regions that this Bill is supposedly intended to address.
We will not vote against this group of new clauses, but we find it staggering that the Government have expended so much effort on inserting these provisions into the Bill at this late stage, given the obvious deficiencies of the concept. There is a reason successive Conservative Governments shied away from legislating for community land auctions, yet so desperate is this Administration to do everything other than what is necessary to deliver enough of the right homes in the right places that they are willing to dredge up any ill-conceived academic proposal in the hope that something might confound expectations and shift the dial when it comes to development and regeneration.
In our view, the Government’s time over recent weeks would have been far better spent bringing forward for consideration today the proposals outlined in the second part of the recent compulsory purchase compensation reforms consultation to disapply section 17 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 in certain circumstances and thereby enable local authorities to acquire land at or closer to existing use value.
I turn to Government new clauses 77, 79 and 78, the last of which introduces new schedule 1. As the Minister said, these would collectively insert into the Bill another entirely new part, amending the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 to require local authorities to assume that certain sewage disposal works will meet new nutrient pollution standards in relation to nitrogen and/or phosphorous within new designated catchment areas by specified dates.
In general terms, we support this set of amendments, seeking as they do to address the real problem of polluting effluent discharged from sewage treatment works that causes damage to the ecological health of nutrient-sensitive habitats. In particular, we welcome the presumptive upgrade date in new clause 77, given that it aligns with the Environment Act 2021 target to halt the decline in species abundance by 2030.
However, we believe the new part these amendments introduce could be strengthened in several important ways. I will give just two examples. First, we believe the Government should reconsider the exemption new clause 77 provides for sewage works serving smaller populations where their catchment areas would impact upon sensitive upstream river sites, given their importance for biodiversity.
Secondly, given the real risk that development that contributes to nutrient pollution could be approved in areas where the necessary upgrade works ultimately do not take place by the presumptive 2030 deadline, we believe the Government should strengthen new clause 78 to provide for a robust and adequately resourced monitoring and compliance process to ensure that required upgrades are on track. Given the lack of opportunity that we have been given to scrutinise this new part appropriately, we trust the other place will consider carefully these and other potential improvements that might be made.
Finally, Government new clause 119 would require the Secretary of State by regulations to
“make provision requiring or permitting the registration of specified short-term rental properties”.
Along with highlighting the detrimental impact of excessive rates of second home ownership on many coastal and rural communities, we debated at great length during Committee the problems experienced by many coastal, rural and urban communities as a result of the marked growth in short-term and holiday lets in terms of the affordability and availability of homes for local people to buy and to rent, as well as a rise in anti-social behaviour in some circumstances.
Over a period of many years, the Opposition have not only raised concerns about the deregulated nature of the short-term lettings sector, but have resisted attempts to deregulate it further. We therefore very much welcome the fact that the Government have finally accepted that more regulation of short-term rental properties is required.
At present, there is no single definitive source of data on the total number of short-term lettings in existence, not least because it is an incredibly diverse sector, with providers offering accommodation across multiple platforms. Accurate data is essential if we are to properly regulate the sector, and we therefore welcome the principle of a registration system as provided for by Government new clause 119.
However, in our view registration is a necessary but not sufficient step towards properly addressing the impact that excessive concentrations of short-term lets are having on communities across the country. We recognise fully the need to introduce regulation in this area carefully and in a way that is proportionate, so that local economies can continue to enjoy the benefit that short-term lettings can bring.
However, such is the impact of high concentrations of short-term lets on many local housing markets and economies that we feel strongly that communities need to be given the means to limit their numbers now. That
could be facilitated by an appropriately resourced and enforceable licensing scheme, such as the one proposed in new clause 107 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for York Central; the creation of new planning use classes, which the Government have indicated they are minded to consult on; or even a greater willingness on the part of Ministers in the short term to allow local authorities to exercise article 4 directions where they believe they are necessary.
Whatever the precise means, what is important for the purposes of the Bill is that Ministers recognise not only that registration alone will not be enough, but that they must seek to enact further measures at pace, preferably by means of this legislation. As such, although we will not oppose new clause 119, we will continue to press the Government to go further and faster on this matter.