The Planning and Infrastructure Bill has been scrutinised in the House of Lords for the second time, with many speakers welcoming reform but others outlining ‘serious concerns’ and calling the bill ‘an affront to democracy’.
Introducing the bill, Parliamentary undersecretary Lord Khan of Burnley (Housing, Communities and Local Government), noted ‘there are simply not enough homes’. The time it takes to secure planning permission for major infrastructure projects is now around four years, he noted, and the number of new homes set to be built this year is just 200,000 – the lowest level for a decade.
‘The Planning and Infrastructure Bill will help turn this around’, he said, adding:
“The bill will make further changes to streamline decision-making in the planning system to ensure that the system operates as effectively and efficiently as possible.
“The Government have published a technical consultation in which we propose splitting planning applications into two tiers, providing certainty about what decisions will be delegated to expert officers and at the same time ensuring that councillors can continue to focus on the most significant proposals for housing and commercial developments.”
Acknowledging fears that the bill would bypass local democracy, Lord Kahn continued:
“This change will not undermine the important role that planning committees play in providing local democratic oversight of planning decisions. Instead, it will ensure that planning committees play their proper role in scrutinising development to the best standard possible and without delay.
“In fact, 96% of planning decisions are already made by officers. Introducing a national scheme of delegation will simply create greater consistency of decision-making, ensuring that planning committees have the time to deal with the most significant or contentious applications.”
However, the assurances were not enough to appease critics of the bill. Baroness Scott of Bybrook, shadow minister (Housing, Communities and Local Government) outlined a number of ‘serious concerns’:
“[T]he removal of councillors’ voting rights on individual applications; sharply increased housing targets in rural areas, without sufficient protection for villages; the shift to strategic plans; and the questions over the deliverability of the 1.5 million homes target.
“That figure appears to be little more than the Deputy Prime Minister’s arbitrary aspiration.”
Conservative peer Baroness Coffey called part two of the bill – which relates to planning changes – ‘an affront to democracy’. She added:
“What worries me about removing decisions from local councillors and giving it to planning officers is that we now have even more housing targets going into the countryside. There are situations where, for example, plans set a density for a 2,000-house development, and then officers recommend outline planning where the density is only one-third of what it should have been in the plan.
“It does not take too much of a brain to work out that, to meet the rest of the housing, they will have to use three times the amount of land.”
Earl Russell, the Liberal Democrat Lords spokeseperson for energy and climate change, pointed out that 1.5 million homes already have planning permission and 95% of local planning applications are approved. The problem, he said, lies with the failure to deliver:
“All too often, developers do not build, and the systems simply fail to ensure delivery. The bill misses an important opportunity to better hold large house builders to account and continues a developer-led approach.”
Crossbench peer Lord Best, who has extensive experience of the property sector as vice-president of the Town and Country Planning Association and Local Government Association, honorary member of the Royal Town Planning Institute, and honorary fellow of the Royal Institute of British Architects, agreed.
He commented:
“This reliance on the large housebuilders has not produced the quantity or quality of homes we need. It has seen development of expanses of greenfield land in preference to small sites and brownfield schemes that can regenerate whole neighbourhoods. It has put SME builders out of business—down from building 40% of new homes to just 10% since 2000. It has not created apprenticeships and a trained workforce, and there has been little innovation or use of modern methods of construction.
“It has led to so-called ‘fleecehold’ sales to home buyers and to uniform, soulless design, and there has been little attempt to provide the green spaces and community facilities that are the making of any place. The housebuilders have worked at a pace that suits themselves—a build-out rate that ensures no reduction in house prices.
“The housebuilders can reply that they are profit-making businesses with shareholders to satisfy and they cannot be expected to work for public benefit—for the common good. But surely, now is the time for a model that is driven by what is best for the place in question.”
Crossbench peer Lord Cameron of Dillington also questioned the lack of skills and asked how this would be addressed:
“The Government’s biggest problem is going to be the availability of skills. Where are they going to find the hundreds of new planners needed, the thousands of new builders, plumbers and electricians, and, above all, the hundreds of new skilled ecologists that Natural England and others will need to make this Bill work successfully?”
Commenting on the debate, Propertymark CEO Nathan Emerson said it had been positive to see peers challenge some of the problems planning delays can pose, but other issues – including the lack of a skilled workforce – must be addressed.
He said:
“It is vital that the planning process is streamlined and that planning committees are adequately staffed to help speed up applications. It has been positive to hear discussion on aspects such as better digitising the planning process and making clearer provision for integrating data-led analysis within decision-making.
“It is also crucial that issues, such as ensuring a skilled workforce and a robust supply chain are fully in place for this proposed new legislation to be effective. It has also been encouraging to witness wide-ranging conversation regarding any environmental impacts that new housing developments can bring, especially concerning the future use of greenbelt spaces. Within proceedings, it has been reassuring to hear vast dialogue regarding background infrastructure and an ambition to ensure modern communities are built and not just new dwellings.
“In addition, it is right there was scrutiny within the second reading in the House of Lords regarding the nearly one million already granted planning applications which have not been implemented and the profound impact this is having on current housing supply.
“It was also constructive to see challenges from peers regarding the quality of some new housing and the fact there must be closer scrutiny overall on this subject moving forward.”
