Amendment statements
Amendments relating to pavement licencing
Amendments 207 and 208, which would enable local authorities to issue £500 fixed penalty notices to persons who leave or put removable furniture on a street in contravention of a notice and would make it an offence to contravene a local authority notice requiring a person to remove furniture or to refrain from putting it on the highway.
LGA view
- The Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill has addressed some of the problems with the temporary regime and provided councils with better enforcement powers to take action where businesses are flouting the rules, for example, by blocking pavements, which was not available under the temporary regime.
- Under the temporary regime, many licensing authorities highlighted the challenge of not being able to enforce the regime they are overseeing, with district councils issuing licences under the temporary regime but enforcement powers remaining with county councils under the Highways Act. For example, if a premises puts tables and chairs outside their business without a licence, licensing authorities cannot take action against this business but would need the highways authority to do so. This can impact residents by blocking streets, which particularly affects disabled people, creating noise nuisance, and potentially placing customers at risk if the location of the table and chairs is not safe.
- It is welcome that the provisions in the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill go some way to addressing this. Under the current provisions, if a business breaches its licence, licensing authorities can remove the furniture and store it, require the person to pay the authority’s reasonable costs in removing and storing the furniture, and refuse to return the furniture until those reasonable costs are paid. If within the period of three months the person does not pay the reasonable costs, or does not recover the furniture, the local authority may dispose of the furniture by sale or in any other way it thinks fit, and retain any proceeds of sale for any purpose it thinks fit.
- For some licensing authorities, these powers will be workable. However, others have concerns about the logistical challenges involved and are concerned they will not be able to use them. For example, many councils will not have the capacity to collect or store this furniture and removing furniture could place licensing or other officers in a confrontational situation with business owners.
- There is a case for licensing authorities to have alternative powers, which is what the amendments are designed to address. These amendments would make it an offence to contravene a local authority notice requiring a person to remove furniture or to refrain from putting it on the highway and would enable local authorities to issue £500 fixed penalty notices to persons who leave or put removable furniture on a street in contravention of a notice.
- These amendments will offer licensing authorities an alternative approach to tackling non-compliance by creating an offence of breaching a pavement licence or operating without one and giving councils the ability to issue a fixed penalty notice for these offences. Councils will then have the option of taking different enforcement approaches – such as seizing the furniture or issuing a fixed penalty notice - depending on the circumstances of each case.
Amendments relating to rough sleeping
Amendment 1 tabled by Nickie Aiken MP, which would leave out clause 187, which allows the Government to use regulations to create criminal offences similar to those under the Vagrancy Act 1824, disregarding the repeal of that Act by the Police, Crime, Courts and Sentencing Act 2022.
LGA view
- Every instance of homelessness is a tragedy, and councils work hard to prevent rough sleeping and homelessness from happening and offer support to those who unfortunately find themselves in a difficult situation. We support an approach that ensures that people are offered the right support at the right time, rather than criminalisation.
- Some of the people rough sleeping, especially in large urban areas, are not homeless but are taking part in a street-based lifestyle which can have aspects of anti-social behaviour such as drug use and aggressive begging.
- Individuals who are not homeless, and not meeting the threshold for ASB intervention from councils often fall outside of the remit of local authority services. This can make enforcement difficult where an individual is adequately housed but engages in street-based activities.
- The Government held a consultation on an effective replacement for the Vagrancy Act – (which closed in May 2022)– and we await the Government response outlining the proposed next steps. We would welcome clarification whether the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill is the vehicle in which the Government are using to replace the Vagrancy Act, despite it being repealed in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act, which reached Royal Assent in April 2022.
- We want to work with the Government on the urgent implementation of a cross-government homelessness prevention strategy, associated multi-year funding, that looks at tackling the drivers and levers of homelessness within central government policy.
Amendment relating to vacant higher value council homes
NC67, tabled by Matthew Pennycook MP, would implement the decision set out in the 2018 social housing green paper to not require local authorities to make a payment in respect of their vacant higher value council homes as provided for by the Housing and Planning Act 2016.
LGA view
- The LGA supports this new clause. It will protect Housing Revenue Accounts from additional expenditure requirements, at the expense of other key national policy commitments. It will allow councils to prioritise funding the delivery of key policy objectives such as decarbonisation, fire and building safety compliance, increasing the supply of social housing and maintaining existing stock. At a time when the Government is seeking to further constrain HRA income via a rent cap, placing additional and unnecessary expenditure needs on HRAs is not in the interest of social housing residents and homeless households on waiting lists.
Amendment relating to skills in the planning sector
NC71, tabled by Matthew Pennycook MP, this new clause would commit the Secretary of State to publishing a comprehensive resources and skills strategy for the planning sector within 12 months of the Bill securing Royal Assent and would specify what such a strategy should include.
LGA view
- The LGA supports this new clause. We welcome the Government’s announcement, alongside the Bill to develop a planning skills strategy. The introduction of a firm timescale in the Bill will ensure that this commitment has the urgency that it requires. In addition, this new clause would provide the sector with certainty as to what they can expect from the new strategy.
Amendments relating to referendums on planning decisions
NC48, NC49 and NC50, tabled by Rachel Maskell MP, would require planning applications for large and strategic sites to be subject to approval by residents in a referendum; that applications which have already been granted are subject to approval by referendum after a certain period of time for large sites; and would subject planning applications for less affordable housing to approval by residents in a referendum
LGA view
- The LGA does not support these new clauses. Local Planning Authorities have a duty to ensure that planning applications are compliant with its local plan policies, before permission is granted. This includes, as one example, the number of affordable homes delivered on-site. In addition, the local plan is subject to robust and extensive testing from residents during its preparation. Therefore, subjecting planning applications to a referendum will duplicate the consultation and engagement that has already taken place with residents and put an unnecessary administrative burden on already stretched planning departments. Further, the referendum could also be undemocratic if the referendum blocks development which complies with the local plan, which in turn would undermine the rights of those residents that participated in the local plan-making process.
- If these new clauses were to be introduced it risks stifling the production and implementation of local plans, which will prevent the fast delivery of the affordable homes and the infrastructure that communities need. We would welcome alternative measures which seeks to enhance opportunities for engagement with residents, and critically reach a wider audience, within the process of developing local plans.
Amendment relating to planning fees and charges
NC29 tabled by Theresa Villiers MP would enable the Government to allow local planning authorities to vary planning fees and charges to cover their costs relating to planning, which could include the employment of qualified planners.
LGA view
- The LGA supports this new clause. This would put councils in a stronger position to address the issue of resourcing in the planning sector including a shortage of qualified planners. While we welcome the increase in planning fees announced alongside the Bill, it does not go far enough to deliver a well-resourced planning sector.
Amendment relating to planning authorities’ resources
NC32 tabled by Matthew Pennycook MP would require the Secretary of State to provide sufficient additional resources to local planning authorities to enable them to implement the changes required by Chapter 1 of Part 3.
LGA view
- The LGA supports this new clause. It is right that upfront and sufficient new burdens is provided to offset the cost of delivering the additional responsibilities placed on councils as a result of the reforms.
Amendments relating to permitted development rights
NC43, tabled by Rachel Maskell MP, would review of permitted development rights (Rachael Maskell)
NC68, tabled by Matthew Pennycook MP, would commit the government to carrying out a comprehensive review of permitted development rights within 12 months of the Bill securing Royal Assent.
LGA view
- The LGA supports this amendment. We would welcome a review of the impact of permitted development rights (PDR) within 12 months of the introduction of the Act. There is much to welcome in the Bill, however it is at odds with the existence of the PDR policy – including the Government’s principles on a genuinely plan-led system and empowering local leaders and communities. If the Government is serious about ensuring that local plans are not undermined, then we would urge the Government to revoke permitted development rights which disenfranchises local leaders and communities.
- We know that PDR has undermined housing targets, with more than 18,000 affordable houses have been lost as a result of office-to-residential conversions under permitted development. In addition, we are concerned about the quality of developments implemented via PDR, as developments that go through the planning system are subject to more stringent quality assurance.
- The removal of PDR would empower councils to realise the ambitions set out in the Bill including reimagining high streets and town centres.
Amendments relating to the National Planning Policy Framework
NC14 tabled by Theresa Villiers MP, would require a revised NPPF within six months to provide that housing targets are advisory not mandatory and that the five-year housing land supply rule will no longer apply.
LGA view
- The LGA supports this new clause. Decisions on housing developments should be taken at local level, underpinned by local knowledge and decision-making by councils and communities who know their areas best. Top-down mandatory housing targets cannot replace this and is at odds with the principles of the Bill in relation to empowering local leaders and communities. We broadly welcome the announcement alongside the Bill to remove the five-year land supply, as it will curb speculative development and ‘planning by appeal’, as well as giving local plans more weight when making decisions on planning applications. It is right that the National Planning Policy Framework is updated to reflect this.
Amendments relating to compulsory purchase
NC62 tabled by Marcus Jones MP, which would change how prospects of planning permission are taken into account when assessing land value for purposes of compulsory purchase compensation. Planning permission will be taken for granted only if the planning authority certifies that it would have granted it, and such certificates will be reduced in scope.
LGA view
- The LGA supports this new clause. It is right that land value is not inflated by the prospect of planning permission if permission would not have been granted. However, it is our view that in any event the most proportionate policy position for all parties is for land to be purchased at its existing use value. This protects the human rights of the landowner by receiving the payment that the land is worth in its current form, while also allowing councils to deliver their statutory responsibilities by acquiring land as a last resort.
NC26 tabled by Theresa Villiers MP would require the Government to review powers of compulsory purchase and whether they are adequate to meet its levelling-up and regeneration objectives.
LGA view
- The LGA supports this new clause. It is right that the adequacy of compulsory purchase powers are kept under review, particularly following the introduction of the reforms in the Bill. The most proportionate policy position for all parties is for land to be purchased at its existing use value. This protects the human rights of the landowner by receiving the payment that the land is worth in its current form, while also allowing councils to deliver their statutory responsibilities by acquiring land as a last resort.
Amendments on remote meetings
NC28 tabled by Theresa Villiers MP would enable planning committees to meet virtually. It is based on the Local Authorities and Police and Crime Panels (Coronavirus) (Flexibility of Local Authority and Police and 34 Friday 9 September 2022 COMMITTEE STAGE Crime Panel Meetings) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020, made under s78 of the Coronavirus Act 2020
LGA view
- We support this new clause. The LGA has been long calling for urgent legislation for all remote council meetings and we responded to the Government’s consultation on remote meetings in June 2021.
- Over the course of the pandemic, councils conducted all of their council business remotely. Councils reported to us that virtual meetings allowed for critical decisions to be made democratically and without delay during this emergency period.
- Key benefits include the resilience of democratic processes and reduced reliance on delegating decisions to officers in times of crisis and flexibility, resulting in better councillor attendance and drastically increased resident engagement with council meetings.
- Councils also noted that physical meetings can be a barrier to attendance for some individuals and that virtual meetings can be more accessible. Disabled people and people with caring responsibilities or working commitments can find virtual meetings easier to access; this applies to residents and councillors alike.
- If the flexibility to hold online meetings is restored to councils it is essential that the Government avoids being overly prescriptive about the circumstances under which councils can use virtual and hybrid meeting formats.
- Councils and councillors are best placed to decide how and when to use different meetings formats to balance the advantages and disadvantages of different meeting options and reflect the variety of local authority types and governance arrangements. Councils will need considerable flexibility for local determination as to how and when to utilise virtual and hybrid meetings to ensure they can realise the benefits of different meeting options to suit their local context.
- We continue to urge the Government to publish the findings of the consultation as quickly as possible.
Amendments on second homes
NC29 tabled by Theresa Villiers MP, would mean planning permission would be required to convert a primary residence to a second home or holiday let.
LGA view
- The LGA supports this new clause. This will allow councils to have greater oversight over second homes and holiday lets in their local authority area.
Amendments on council tax
NC21 tabled by Theresa Villiers MP, would make uncompleted dwellings subject to Council Tax from the day that planning permission required them to be completed.
LGA view
- The LGA supports this new clause. If we are to build the homes the country needs, councils must be empowered to take decisive action on this issue. This new clause would enable councils to incentivise developers to build out and reduce the time lag between permission being granted and homes being completed.
Amendments relating to progress of levelling-up missions
Amendment NC1 tabled by Judith Cummins MP, which would require the Secretary of State to establish an independent body that can provide reports on the Government’s progress on levelling-up missions and outline recommendations for their future delivery.
LGA view
- The LGA supports these amendments which relate to monitoring the progress of the Government’s levelling-up missions.
- The draft metrics proposed in the Levelling Up White Paper to measure progress towards the twelve missions are a good first step. However, we have previously stated we are concerned they still fall short of the full breadth of what is needed to create thriving and inclusive communities.
- The establishment of an independent body that can provide reports on the Government’s progress on levelling-up missions and outline recommendations for their future delivery will further ensure that progress towards the missions is followed closely.
- We want to work with the Government to ensure that the metrics used to produce an annual report on the Levelling Up missions are fully consulted on and reflect the diverse needs and aspirations of communities across the country.
Amendments relating to flood management and mitigation
Amendment NC2 tabled by Emma Hardy MP which would require the Government to set minimum standards for flood resilience, flood mitigation and flood waste management in building regulations.
LGA view
- We support this amendment. It reflects LGA’s past calls to ensure building regulations include mandatory flood protection measures in new builds such as raised electrical sockets, fuse boxes and sealed floors.
NC3 tabled by Emma Hardy MP which would place a duty on the Government and local authorities to make data about flood prevention and risk available for the purpose of assisting insurers and property owners.
LGA view
- The LGA does not support this amendment. We are concerned that local authorities are already facing funding and resourcing pressures, and this would place an additional duty on councils to publish data.
- We are additionally unsure of how much data councils would be able to provide on flood risk. Residents are already able to request data from the Environment Agency about the flooding history of their property, and many councils provide flood risk maps and data to guide residents. Data from strategic level flood risk assessments may not be suitable for use at the individual property level.
Amendment relating to holiday lets
NC80 tabled by Rachael Maskell MP would provide the introduction of a licensing scheme for holiday lets.
LGA view
- Councils have highlighted the significant impact that unregulated holiday lets are having on their communities, and planning regulation must be a part of the solution.
- However, we are calling for a wider suite of powers to allow councils to manage holiday accommodation in a proportionate way, balancing the need to accommodate tourists with the needs of their local community.
- Our recent response to the Government’s call for evidence on introducing a registration scheme sets out the measures we believe Government should take, which go beyond a simple registration scheme.