My Lords, this short group is actually very important. Clause 156 in Part 8 is an introduction by the Government of a new type of development corporation: locally led. Development corporations have been around in various guises for a long time—new towns, Canary Wharf and the Olympic Park are examples—with very variable degrees of success in achieving their stated aims. Development corporations
are the vehicle for public-private partnerships, often to develop former industrial sites. In that sense, the principle is supported by these Benches. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, is quite right to challenge some aspects of the planned changes. We support her Amendments 404 and 405, which would ensure that the public have a right for their voice to be heard. This is, after all, the levelling-up Bill, where public engagement, involvement and participation are emphasised.
It is absolutely right—fundamental, in my view—that locally elected representatives are at the heart of development corporations, for the very reason that they are the route by which members of the public can take their concerns, raise complaints, get answers, challenge decisions that are being made and hold the board to account for the public money that is being spent. Unfortunately, that is not the case with some existing development corporations. Wherever public funding is involved, as it is in development corporations, there has to be public and transparent decision-making and then public accountability for those decisions. Hence Amendment 403A in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Shipley.
Unfortunately, one development corporation, the Teesside Development Corporation mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, is making headlines of the wrong sort, in both the Yorkshire Post and the Financial Times, for the apparent failure of transparency and accountability. Teesside is a mayoral development corporation—I asked this question yesterday in the Chamber, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, responded—where it seems that the mayor has the sole right to appoint the board membership of the development corporation. I think that was the response I got, but maybe that is not the case, in which case I hope that is put right. This practice is totally contrary to good governance, where openness and inclusivity have to be the hallmark. The extension of development corporations to include locally led ones is an opportunity for the Government to review best practice in governance, transparency and accountability and make the appropriate changes so that all development corporations meet the highest standards of open and transparent governance.
7.45 pm
It is clearly counter to good governance for one person—the Mayor of Tees Valley, in this case—to have the power to appoint board members. This has to change; otherwise, there will always be a smell of cronyism, whether perceived or real, surrounding the board, and, where that is the case, it does not do any good for anybody. Good governance also involves meetings being held in public, where questions can be asked and the board be held accountable for its decisions. Unfortunately, as we have learned from reports in the Financial Times concerning the Teesside Development Corporation, that is not the case. Former members of the board resigned because they said that discussions and decisions on key issues did not take place at board meetings, because the mayor made decisions in private and undocumented meetings with private developers. That just makes people think that the wrong decisions are being made for the wrong reasons. Good governance is about openness, transparency and accountability,
and where that does not occur, you get instances such as this, where investigative journalists raise issues because it does not look as though decisions have been made in the public’s best interests. That is the bit I wanted to say about governance, because I feel very strongly about it.
The second part I want to raise is about the rights and powers on planning that have been given to development corporations. As anyone who has been involved in local government knows, an area that is set aside for a particular purpose is not an island on its own; it has connections with the rest of the area to which it belongs. However large the area, there will be consequences for the communities that surround it. Traffic is an obvious one; environmental standards, air quality and noise pollution may be other examples. Where the development corporations are given powers over the planning process, my concerns are around the local planning authority’s wider local plan, which will have a whole raft of policies, including the NPPF policies, incorporated into it, to which it will expect all planning applications in their area to adhere. Where we have a development corporation which has been given planning powers apparently to speed up decision-making, it must be done in line with the policies that have been agreed by the local planning authority and the local council in the local plan; otherwise, the consequences of what is done in the development corporation area will have an impact on the rest of the area and will not have been taken into account.
Development corporations, and locally led ones, are a very useful tool for regeneration, particularly of brownfield sites in former industrial areas. However, it must be done in a way that responds to local needs, where local representatives can be heard and be part of the decision-making process, and the planning and environmental concerns are those of the local planning authority and the local council.