argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Housing and Planning Bill — House of Lords, 2016-03-17
Topic: Housing
Dale Norman Campbell-Savours (Labour, Centre-left): The holder of the freehold to whom those leases are transferred must comply with the original leasehold agreement between the original freeholder and the leaseholders. You cannot simply arbitrarily change the lease. There must be, in the original lease provided by the freeholder when the block was originally purchased, provision to do the things that the noble Baroness is now objecting to. Maybe no one has read the original lease.
Housing and Planning Bill — House of Lords, 2016-03-17
Topic: Housing
Dale Norman Campbell-Savours (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I would like to bring a little experience to this debate. I was involved in an enfranchisement over getting a share of a freehold from leasehold. Although it was an enfranchisement, if I remember rightly, the costs were not payable by the tenant in the enfranchisement proceeding before the tribunal. Notwithstanding that, it is interesting to know what can happen in these tribunals. In the tribunal in which my residents’ association was involved, we were paying £3,000 a day for a lawyer. I remember sitting there one day during the inquiry. There had been a gentle chat in the morning and at lunchtime the chairman of the tribunal looked up at the clock and said, "I think we’ve had an interesting day and I suggest that we adjourn until tomorrow morning". In the event that the bill had been payable, the residents would have had to share out the £1,500 costs. In fact it was not payable, because, as I said, it was an enfranchisement. In circumstances where the liability did fall on the tenants, the bill would have fallen on the residents. Ministers have to have in mind the fact that complications such as those can arise in a tribunal, where the chairman might not be fully aware of the costs of the lawyers representing the residents.
Housing and Planning Bill — House of Lords, 2016-03-17
Topic: Housing
Jeremy Hugh Beecham (Labour, Centre-left): I thank the noble Viscount for giving way. I entirely endorse the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Young, and my noble friend Lord Berkeley. I sympathise with the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, who is temporarily not in her place, although I have some difficulties with the wording. Amendment 84E would insert a clause about sinking funds which states: "The buyer of a leasehold … is required to make periodic deposits" She refers again to the buyer of a leasehold in proposed new subsection (4), but of course the leaseholder need not have purchased—
Housing and Planning Bill — House of Lords, 2016-03-17
Topic: Housing
Dale Norman Campbell-Savours (Labour, Centre-left): Going by my own experience, if a statutory requirement was placed on the management company to forward correspondence requesting that information to the people who own the leases, particularly if they were abroad—in other words, if the responsibility was on the management company—following a request from the residents association, we would indeed get the names.
Housing and Planning Bill — House of Lords, 2016-03-17
Topic: Housing
Anthony Gueterbock (Labour, Centre-left): I am very grateful to the Minister for his answer, but in the exception mentioned—when properties are of special architectural or historic interest or adjoin such houses and it is important to safeguard them and their surroundings—the definition of whether a lease could be given up is very wide. Many of the buildings which I believe are the subject of this debate are in fact 1960s houses. They are probably very nice houses but they are not in the same category as the Garrison or the off islands or anything like that. It seems that there is no appeal in this process. The Duchy’s decision is final and that is that—you like it or lump it. Can nothing be done about it?
Housing and Planning Bill — House of Lords, 2016-03-17
Topic: Housing
Dianne Hayter (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I thank the Government Front Bench for allowing us to take this amendment at this stage and apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Bates, and my noble friend Lord Rosser. The reason is that between 2 pm and 3 pm this afternoon I am completing my house purchase and I will have the keys at 3 pm. That is utterly relevant to this debate because the money was certainly in my solicitor’s account at 2 pm. I am hoping that by 3 pm it will be in the account of the seller and I am completely confident that that money in the solicitor’s account is safe It will not go through estate agents—estate agents hold very little in client accounts. You pay almost nothing to the estate agent. The seller will have to give them a percentage of the sale, but it is very small. But the amount that tenants pay to lettings agents is enormous. So under an earlier Act, client money protection is essential for estate agents, who hardly handle any client money, but not obligatory for lettings agents who handle an enormous amount. The noble Viscount, Lord Younger, again says that tenants can shop around. They cannot. In London, you are lucky to find anywhere to live. The idea that as a tenant you would shop around for your lettings agent, let alone the property, is, I am afraid, unrealistic I thank the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, for his intervention. I have to confess that when I went on holiday I had not realised that my money was protected, but there it is. We make it essential for holiday firms and estate agents, but somehow for lettings agents this £300 to safeguard tenants’ and landlords’ money is a step too far I hope that the Minister was not saying that he wants even more lettings agents coming in—lettings agents who would not protect their clients’ money. I think that that is what he is saying. He is saying that he wants more people to come in as lettings agents, but without requiring them to protect their clients’ money. That sounds to me like a charter for more rogue "set up today, take the clients’ money tomorrow" lettings agents Despite the Minister’s firm response, I hope that the Government will think about this again. We will clearly bring it back on Report. I am not threatening anything but I think he knows how much support it will have. Instead of having to go down that route, I ask the Minister whether he will be willing to meet me, the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, and perhaps some other noble Lords to talk about this, as I do not feel that the Government are taking the right position here. For the record, I saw a very healthy nod from the Minister there. So I thank him for that and apologise to the Committee for having to get my new key at 3 pm. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Housing and Planning Bill — House of Lords, 2016-03-17
Topic: Housing
Jeremy Hugh Beecham (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I sometimes think that the noble Baroness’s title is not really adequate: "Baroness Gardner of Leaseholds" would have been better than Baroness Gardner of Parks. She is an expert in these matters and deeply committed to improving the situation of leaseholders, and on that she is to be congratulated. It is fair to say that the aspirations in these amendments are to be welcomed. However, I have some difficulties with the drafting In Amendment 84E there is a reference to: "The buyer of a leasehold in a shared residential building" However, not every owner is a buyer—they may inherit or be given the property, and so "buyer" is not the right term. That also applies to subsection (4) of the amendment’s proposed new clause. It is also not clear in proposed new subsection (1) how the requirement is to be made. Normally, of course, provision is made within the lease. The implication here is that, somehow, legislation should overtake the provisions in an existing lease, which I think is a somewhat difficult concept. Furthermore, proposed new subsection (3) says that: "The sums to be deposited and the timetable for their deposit shall be determined by those holding rights in the shared building", but it does not indicate how many of the leaseholders would be required—I suspect that a majority is what is intended, as it is in subsection (1) of the new clause proposed in Amendment 84F. That needs to be tidied up Having said that, there will be a chance, if I may say so respectfully, to improve the wording of the amendment before we get to Report. I hope that the Government will be sympathetic to this and possibly work with the noble Baroness in coming to an agreed position. She has highlighted a significant issue that is having adverse consequences for many occupiers of leasehold properties; at any rate, those with common parts. Perhaps the Minister will undertake to look at that with her and others to see whether the Government might bring forward an amendment to meet the objectives set out here but, as I said, unfortunately with drafting that may not achieve them.
Housing and Planning Bill — House of Lords, 2016-03-17
Topic: Housing
Dale Norman Campbell-Savours (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I do not like either of these amendments. I want to make it quite clear that I think they are wrong in principle. For a start, Amendment 84E states that the buyer of a leasehold "is required"—in other words, it would be mandatory. There are blocks of flats—particularly where there is self-management, as in the case of my arrangement in Maidenhead—where resident committees agree that a sinking fund is not needed. We simply agree to turn up the money when a large expenditure is required. A couple of years ago, we had to spend £80,000 on a roof repair, but we agreed in advance that we would not levy for it until the expenditure needed to be incurred. It should be left to people in blocks of flats to decide whether there is a sinking fund, because there are varying views. Therefore, I am against that provision. I am also opposed to Amendment 84F, and I will explain why. It is being suggested here that a majority—51%—of leaseholders could change the terms of the lease. If the terms of a lease were changed in such a way whereby a minority objected, and that objection was so strong that they just become awkward, which is what happens, they would simply default on the payment of their service charges. You cannot divide leaseholders in that way. In the case of the block in Maidenhead, where we have shared freehold interest, every time we enter into major works—indeed, any works—we agree in the resident committee. Because we are also the management company running the organisation, in which I take a very active part, we make sure that everybody agrees. Indeed, we get letters or emails from them confirming that they agree to any change that we wish to make. The reason is very simple. We have people that live both within and without the United Kingdom. In the event that we were to take an action which in any way they found unacceptable, I know that people would say, "Well, I’m sorry. I just do not agree with what you’ve done. I know I was invited. I know it said that in the event that I was unable to be there I would be deemed to be in favour of the proposal", but irrespective of that they would feel that they were being manipulated into taking a decision to which they object.
Housing and Planning Bill — House of Lords, 2016-03-17
Topic: Housing
Dale Norman Campbell-Savours (Labour, Centre-left): The answer is actually in the original deed. If on acquisition of the property and purchase, the original deed specified that a suitable majority was sufficient to take a decision and the purchasers signed up to that, they are bound by that. The resident association, or the management company if it is run by the resident association, would have that in mind when it took decisions. Both these amendments could be dealt with in terms of the original lease. In the event that a lease change is required, then you would need—to be fair, in my view—a 100% majority turnout, or proxy or whatever, of all the residents to take that decision to introduce these provisions into the lease. If that is done then it is fair, but to impose it on people who may be reluctant to accept it is quite wrong.
Housing and Planning Bill — House of Lords, 2016-03-17
Topic: Housing
Dale Norman Campbell-Savours (Labour, Centre-left): When the noble Baroness purchased her apartment, she would have done well to ask her lawyer to read the lease and explain to her what was in that lease; it would have precluded her doing what she is suggesting now.
Housing and Planning Bill — House of Lords, 2016-03-17
Topic: Housing
Dale Norman Campbell-Savours (Labour, Centre-left): May I make a suggestion to the Minister? There is a reform that would be helpful. Some freeholders require 50% of the residents to agree to the formation of a residents’ association that they are prepared to recognise, but unless they get 50% the freeholder will not recognise it. I would like to see, in law, some requirement for a lesser percentage. Particularly in blocks of flats in London, where you have large numbers of residents living abroad—despite the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham—the fact is that you cannot get their addresses and therefore you are often limited in the number of people you have access to in order to meet that 50% threshold. Perhaps the Minister might ask officials to look at that. A nice little amendment to that effect on Report would be very helpful.
Housing and Planning Bill — House of Lords, 2016-03-17
Topic: Other
Jeremy Hugh Beecham (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I am sorry to intervene, but surely the noble Baroness is moving on to other groups. She seems to be responding to the ninth group. Perhaps I am making a mistake. If it is the right group, I beg noble Lords’ pardon.
Housing and Planning Bill — House of Lords, 2016-03-17
Topic: Housing
Jeremy Hugh Beecham (Labour, Centre-left): I think that we will shortly be spending a good deal of time on permission in principle and, judging by what the noble Lord has just said, there may be a degree of agreement. I repeat that people have to look beyond their immediate circumstances and geography. They have to acknowledge that there are needs beyond that immediate locality which have to be reflected in an overall plan. There needs to be a significant contribution from localities to the overall plan but not one that is limited purely by locality in the narrower sense; otherwise, particularly in the present circumstances, we will not get, for example, the required number of houses, although that is not the only issue that needs to be considered in terms of development However, there are housing shortages and physical constraints in some areas. One immediately thinks of London in that context, but other areas also have restrictions. My noble friend Lady Hollis may well say that Norwich, for example, is tightly constrained, and other urban authorities would say the same about their areas. One thinks of Stevenage, for example, which is built to its limits and has no option but to seek—unavailingly, as it turns out—collaboration on development from its neighbouring authorities. There is a balance to be struck, so up to a point I agree with the noble Lord. However, I notice that the noble Lord’s former colleagues are effectively trying to resurrect Gosforth Urban District Council, promoting the concept of the parish council there, which, of course, is entirely unrelated to the fact that they may feel a little under pressure politically.
Housing and Planning Bill — House of Lords, 2016-03-17
Topic: Housing
Julian Charles Roland Hunt (Labour, Centre-left): The Minister explained that resources were needed for these welcome developments. She gave examples of consultants and communities—which is fine—but where is the support for local authority planning departments? This is a very big additional load for them. Will there be more resources? The resources for planning departments are going down. One sees this all across the UK. These planning issues are not getting adequate support. The expertise in the departments is going down and this will make it more difficult for departments in future.
Housing and Planning Bill — House of Lords, 2016-03-17
Topic: Housing
Patricia Hollis (Labour, Centre-left): Just to be clear, my Lords, I have no problems at all where a city has a tradition or a history of having parish councils and wants to use those as the vehicles for neighbourhood planning. All I am saying is that where this is not part of that authentic, organic texture of a city, but where there is a network of other forms of civic groups, community groups and so on—particularly where you have cities with very tight boundaries and very constrained lines—there can be tensions. If Exeter has overcome those, that is great. All I can say from my experience of 25 years of local government is that some of the most difficult decisions concerned precisely those tensions. Obviously one would work with them, and I agree that the neighbourhood planning councils would have to have planning proposals that conformed to the city-wide ones. I accept that, but one should not underestimate the locality—ward councillors and so on, as many of us have been—when it comes to how those tensions can occur. All I am saying is: by all means encourage local authorities to go down this road where there is already a history of parishes of this sort, but do not assume that this is the answer to the deeper problems of keeping a city alive, vibrant and able to respond confidently to new challenges. That is why I have some reservations about trying to suggest that it should apply across the board and that we should be actively encouraging it where people do not want it.
Housing and Planning Bill — House of Lords, 2016-03-17
Topic: Housing
Roy Kennedy (Labour, Centre-left): I am a councillor in Lewisham and Crofton Park. At the moment we are in the process of setting up our own neighbourhood plan, which is very good and I welcome it. Equally, though, it has not answered all the problems. We have some challenges in our area, such as ensuring that there is proper retail provision. We have sites of multiple occupation with no building taking place, and so on. So the plan is all very good and I am supportive of it, but my noble friend has raised some genuine points.
Housing and Planning Bill — House of Lords, 2016-03-17
Topic: Housing
Roy Kennedy (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, as I have told the House many times before, I am a local councillor in Lewisham. I represent the ward of Crofton Park As I have mentioned before, we are in the process of developing our own neighbourhood plan by setting up a neighbourhood forum and taking a much more proactive role in how our local community develops. We are doing this using the powers in the Localism Act 2011. I agree with the comments made previously and in this debate about how that has been a very useful exercise and has certainly engaged with the local community. I am very supportive of that. We are seeking to produce a local script. We will get our documents together for our local community and we hope to have a referendum to get it approved within the next 18 months. The amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, allows for an appeal by a parish council or a neighbourhood forum to the Secretary of State if the local authority’s decision goes against the policies in the approved local plan. Amendment 101BGA seeks to do something similar but wider. I am interested in the Government’s response, because there is a conflict between what the Government are doing in this Bill and what the Localism Act says. Can the Minister deal with that? We need a proper balance; in that regard, I agree with the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Greaves and Lord True. We have to move on, not continue to go backwards and forwards. Something needs to happen here. I will leave my remarks there, but when the Minister responds I may ask one or two questions.
Housing and Planning Bill — House of Lords, 2016-03-17
Topic: Housing
Roy Kennedy (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I will be relatively brief. Amendment 89 seeks to empower the Secretary of State by regulation to enable a local planning authority to direct the use of underused public land to support development and regeneration. The amendment seeks to make speedier use of public land that is not in use or underused. We have all talked about the housing crisis in many debates in this House, particularly during the course of the Bill. We all know we need to build more houses. Although we may disagree on what sorts of houses we need to build and how to build them, we all accept we need to build more The amendment requires local planning authorities to designate land for housing co-ops—something I am very supportive of, and I know that Members on the Government Benches have also expressed support for housing co-operatives in the past. I declare that I am a member of the Co-operative Party, which puts forward policies for a variety of solutions to the problems we face. I beg to move.
Housing and Planning Bill — House of Lords, 2016-03-17
Topic: Housing
Dale Norman Campbell-Savours (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I need to make it clear that Amendment 89 is not Labour Party policy; it is my view and I believe it is supported by millions of people in the country. Despite my repeated interventions, this is the only amendment I have moved in my name and I therefore need to take a little more time in dealing with it. I think you will find that my previous interventions have been very brief Amendment 89 offers us the opportunity to debate the cost of land—the real cost before the profiteers move in. It concerns the impact of land cost on the property market, speculation in land by the land banks and property speculators and hoarders, house price inflation and capital gains tax on developing land. It is about the compulsory purchase of agricultural land for housing development I recognise that exception is already made in law for exceptional rural housing development. However, while on occasion that land is offered free or at marginal cost by landowners, it is often offered in return for planning permission on land which is sold at market prices. I argue for the need to go much further, and have done so in interventions on a number of occasions during the course of the Bill When we want to build an airport, roadway, motorway, bypass, bridge, railway line, reservoir or development in the public interest, under present arrangements we use powers under various pieces of legislation, in particular the land compensation Acts. Compulsory purchase orders are issued, signed off by the Secretary of State, and the land is acquired at its then market rate, plus an uplift. The uplift can include an occupant’s loss payment, a basic loss, an allowance for the replacement of land to include fees and taxes paid, disturbance costs and an allowance to cover the cost of land unreasonably affected by adjacent development. These additional costs are usually but not always marginal compared to the costs of the original CPO land in question The process applies where agricultural, pastoral or arable land is the subject of compulsory purchase. By my reading, the justification for the CPO is set out in Section 226 of the Land Compensation Act 1965, as amended by Section 99 of the 2004 Act where it states that a local authority must not seek a CPO unless it feels that the development of the land will, "promote improvement of the economic well-being of the area … and promote the improvement of the social well-being of the area" Denning, in his judgment in Prest v Secretary of State for Wales, opined on the justification for compulsory purchase, saying that, "Parliament only grants it, or should only grant it, when it is necessary in the public interest" He then went on to set out the safeguards.