My Lords, it is an absolute pleasure for me, as the new chairman of the Built Environment Committee, to open this debate on the importance of the high street. In doing so, I put on record my own thanks to the then members of the committee—including my predecessor, my noble friend Lord Moylan, who chaired this inquiry. I also thank the team of officials who helped the committee, our witnesses and those who submitted evidence. Thanks must also go to the Government for securing time for this debate.
Emperor Napoleon famously said that we were “a nation of shopkeepers”. By the time he said that, high streets were already well and truly established. Although it was meant as a derogatory slight, it spoke to some truth about our nation at the time and, to some extent, to this day. Over the centuries, high streets have remained a constant, where communities have come together to shop, to socialise and to work. They provide vital economic infrastructure and a space for people to meet and trade, to see and be seen. Yet they have of course evolved over time, reflecting changes in trade, retail, technology and society.
However, in recent years, high streets have faced extraordinary challenges. In 2023 alone, more than 10,000 high street shops closed across the UK. People up and down the country have felt the loss of their local clothes shops, pharmacies, pubs and banks. Although retail will remain a feature of the modern high street, there is now greater demand and, indeed, opportunity for restaurants and leisure activities—as well as for more public services, such as health centres and libraries—in town centres.
What communities want and what can be sustained on the high street is constantly changing, so the committee suggested that a “fixed vision” and a “monolithic approach” to their future should be avoided. Local authorities, communities and businesses need to work together to shape high streets that reflect local conditions and are adaptable and resilient. It is crucial that local businesses are involved and empowered to play a part in the regeneration of a high street, and that residents are involved in the decision-making.
High streets will thrive only if people can get to them easily and safely. Traditional high streets are in competition with the convenience of parking arrangements in out-of-town developments, so access by car and sufficient parking are necessary for commercial sustainability and accessibility, combined with better public transport connectivity, particularly through improved bus networks.
As retail occupancy declines and leaves behind vacant units, cafés and restaurants have taken their place. The committee noted that, due to
“wider economic circumstances, consumer preferences and the rent levels landlords seek to remain financially viable may result in the dominance of certain business types”.
My Lords, I am pleased that we have an opportunity to debate last year’s report on the future of high streets from the Built Environment Committee, chaired with such brio by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. It was a very interesting and thoughtful process. We have an opportunity today to consider the Government’s largely positive response. I warn the Minister that I will ask him some detailed questions, although I do not necessarily expect a detailed reply. I am sure that officials will be able to write if necessary.
Most importantly, the Government’s response reflects their sense that the state and prospects of the high street reflect the wider state of the economy and the public realm, and therefore play a critical part in driving, as well as reflecting, national and local growth and renewal. They are part of the national mission. That is very reassuring. I was hopeful for a positive response for the reasons that my noble friend—as he is at the moment as the current chair of the committee—mentioned. Our conclusions are so well evidenced and practical, there should be nothing in this report that is in the “too difficult to implement” box.
The report’s title, Life Beyond Retail?, says it all, in contradiction to the mantra that there is no future for the high street because so much has changed and cannot now be restored. That is primarily in retail, but there are other changes as well. In this context, which is heavy with gloom and doom, we insist that there can be a bright future for the high street, which has evolved over thousands of years to meet changing needs and fashions, but it will take leadership, investment, imagination and innovation.
The Committee will hear a lot in my speech about Lewes, where I have lived for donkey’s years, because it is an exemplar of what is happening, both the worst and the best. Our high street has seen so much change, not to say drama, in its history, which dates back to the Anglo-Saxons. We still have shops with medieval foundations; they were trading in textiles when the Norman castle was being built a millennium ago. We have a 14th-century bookshop. Church, state and law are all physical in our high street. Opposite the county court, in all its magisterial splendour, is the hotel where Tom Paine preached revolution and where people continue to do so—it is that sort of town.
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, with her knowledge and expertise. I think she put it in a nutshell when she described a high street where things can get done as opposed to just bought. My thanks go to our new chair, the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, for so ably introducing this debate, and to our previous chair, the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for guiding us through what could have been a very complicated issue and arriving at a pretty succinct report.
We had a lot of discussion about why a high street is important and who should be responsible for its revival. Of course, we found that there is no one blueprint but our report highlights the factors important to success. It is clear from the evidence we received that a proactive local authority is very important, especially in pump-priming, but the role of the wider community after that is critical—businesses big and small and community organisations are all crucial.
We heard from Frome in Somerset. Its town council began that pump-priming process by hiring a town centre manager and engaging with a local entrepreneur. It has a multi-pronged approach to reviving and maintaining the health of its high street, which has been incredibly successful. Especially compelling was its use of markets to increase footfall and provide opportunities for smaller independent retailers, and it recognised the role that culture plays.
Moving from the positive to the negative, I want to highlight the shocking evidence—I was certainly shocked—that we received from the Royal Society for Public Health. It found that one-fifth of the general public do not go out as often as they would like due to their concern about the lack of public toilets. We can guess which fifth that is: the elderly and those with small children, the very groups who may already suffer from isolation and loneliness. They are not going out as often as they would like just for fear of being caught short. For the elderly, this is inevitably an increasing concern and it is a very important concern, too, for parents with children out of nappies but still young. Of course, urinating in public is an offence and one that authorities sometimes have to invoke to deal with public nuisance caused by alcohol consumption followed by wanton urination, but that is a completely different issue. As our report says:
My Lords, it was a privilege to be a member of the Built Environment Committee under the expert chairmanship of the previous chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. Our inquiry on high streets received more than 60 submissions of evidence from many organisations and individuals. I thank our excellent clerk Kate Wallis and her team, our specialist adviser Dr Lucy Montague and our impressive witnesses. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, on his introductory speech for this debate.
I welcome the broadly positive response of the Government to our report. There can be no doubt that high streets have encountered numerous challenges in recent years. There are at least two principal reasons: first, the falling consumer demand for retail shopping and an increase in online shopping; and, secondly, the presence of out-of-town retail parks and shopping centres. In many towns, these have led to shop closures, declining footfall and a general loss of appeal of the high street.
Our committee recognised that local high streets should be at the heart of communities. We set out to elucidate answers to three key questions. What makes a resilient and thriving high street? Who needs to be involved in making it a success? What is the role of government working with local communities in both policy and funding? I will briefly address some aspects relating to these three key questions.
First, what makes a resilient and thriving high street? Our committee found from oral and written evidence that there is no magic formula. Each high street faces different challenges. It was clear that what people want from their high street has constantly evolved and will continue to do so. This means that conforming to a fixed vision should be avoided. There is a need for adaptability and diversity. However, some common themes emerged. Ideally, communities want a mix of retail and services, green spaces and ready accessibility in terms of safe and easy access—the latter meaning good public transport connectivity, nearby parking for car access and careful design of pedestrianisation. Our inquiry emphasised the importance of celebrating the local history and character of a place, conserving and repurposing historic buildings wherever possible. Celebrating the character and heritage of the high street has a highly beneficial effect, encouraging a greater sense of pride in place, and it potentially draws more people in, increasing footfall.
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, for securing this debate, for taking over as chair of the Built Environment Committee and for his excellent opening speech. I declare my interest as a vice-president of the LGA.
I saw the impact of a can-do council appointing a town centre development officer when I became archdeacon of Stoke some 30 years ago. He would not take no for an answer. When you saw him coming, you got out your tin hat and tried to hide, because he was absolutely determined to develop what became the cultural centre of Hanley. It was an extraordinary transformation. I left some 25 years ago, and I am sure that they need to continue to develop for whatever is required now, but I saw just what the impact of that kind of appointment could be. It was an impressive piece of work.
This report is timely and educational. It is so easy when talking about the decline of the high street to hark back to some golden past, because that is probably what we all remember from years ago. But we must not expect a prosperous high street in 20 years’ time to look the same as it did 20 years ago, and we must not try to revive some version of the high street as we used to know it. The day of the retail-dominated high street, as this report demonstrates, is at least partially over, with reportedly more than 13,000 high street stores having closed in 2024. We need to be creative, innovative and imaginative in our approach to the high streets of the future, as we pivot towards a greater mix of leisure activities, restaurants and public services in our high street offer.
It is not only retail stores that have been closing in vast numbers; we have seen a cutting back of essential services, such as local bank branches and post offices. I recently spoke in a debate on the impact of the closure of high street banking services on SMEs, and the disproportionate impact that this has on the ability to open new businesses in small towns and villages. Can the Minister provide assurances that this is an issue that His Majesty’s Government are seeking to address in the forthcoming small business strategy? I am sure he is aware that some SMEs have been having a particularly difficult time of late, and I know he understands the vital role they have to play in creating strong, vibrant local communities.
My Lords, I too served on the committee while this report was being compiled. I also commend our chairman and our secretariat.
The report testifies to the decline of Britain’s high streets. They have been suffering from the current economic troubles of the nation, which tend to be described as a cost of living crisis, but there are other enduring factors that have contributed to their decline. Among the recent difficulties affecting high streets have been the impact of the Covid pandemic and the rising proportion of online shopping. A less immediate problem has been the development of large shopping centres that have attracted customers away from high streets. This phenomenon has been seen in neighbouring countries, such as France, where large so-called hypermarkets have been built in out-of-town locations. It seems that the detriment of such developments has now been recognised in the UK and that measures are being taken to restrain them.
However, there are other pathologies that have had an enduring effect in the UK. Not the least of these is what might be described as the financialisation of the commercial property market. This process accelerated rapidly in the 1980s and 1990s. The result has been that the ownership of commercial properties is now preponderantly in the hands of financial institutions. These include real estate investment trusts, property companies large and small, pension funds, banks, foreign sovereign wealth funds and many other remote owners.
The assets within the commercial property market are conventionally classified as prime assets and subprime assets. The former include large office buildings and department stores and the latter comprise the majority of the buildings to be found on Britain’s high streets. The salient fact is that the majority of the properties in both categories are not owned by their current occupants. They are owned by parties who are remote from the locations in question and have no day-to-day involvement. The structure of ownership affecting large retail chains and department stores has been revealed in recent years by their financial collapse.
My Lords, I draw the Committee’s attention to my interests in the register. I am president of the Local Government Association, and I have previously been the chair of ukactive.
I welcome this timely and important report. As consumer behaviour continues to shift online, many of our towns are losing their economic vitality and civic identity. I shop online: it is quick and easy, but it is fairly soulless compared with visiting your local high street. As the committee notes, there is no single solution to regenerate our high streets, but we must remain flexible, recognising that no two communities are the same. But if we are really serious about regenerating high streets that are resilient and economically viable, inclusivity must be at the forefront of our efforts.
In 2014, the organisation Disabled Go—now known as AccesAble—audited nearly 30,000 high street shops and restaurants to assess their accessibility. Of the 27,000 retail outlets examined, only 20% were accessible to wheelchair users, largely due to steps and the absence of ramps. Moreover, 91% of the 105 leading high street retailers provided no online information about accessibility at their stores.
The picture is no better in the hospitality sector: around 40% of restaurants had no accessible toilet. I apologise; I am going to overshare. If I go somewhere new, I have to very carefully moderate what I drink, in case there is not an accessible toilet. Nearly half of the restaurant staff questioned said that they had received no disability awareness training.
While an audit on this scale has not been repeated since, the Government’s 2021 UK Disability Survey confirmed that there had been little progress in making our high streets more accessible. The report found that 31% of respondents had trouble accessing public spaces “all the time” or “often”. Of those, a further 78% said that they found it either impossible or very difficult to access shops.
My Lords, it was a great privilege to chair the committee during this inquiry and I am grateful for the kind remarks that have been made by noble Lords. The process must have addled my brain to some extent because I had absolutely convinced myself that I had put my name down to speak in this debate, only to realise too late that I had not, so I am grateful for the opportunity to make a brief contribution in the gap. I would like to use part of it, of course, to thank the clerks and officer support that we had during the inquiry, in particular our clerk Kate Wallis, our policy analyst Andrea Ninomiya, Sarah Carrington, who organised the committee operations so very well, and Dervish Mertcan, who reached out to our global press audience. I should mention the people we take for granted to some extent: the engagement team and, particularly, the technology team. I have now realised after three years, nearly, of chairing the committee that we take for granted the fact of all these wonderful people organising our room, our technology and everything, and we never thank them, so I would like to do that today. Of course, our external specialist adviser Dr Lucy Montague is an expert on this subject and made a real difference to our deliberations.
This is only a short contribution. The contents of the report and of the Government’s response have been aired thoroughly in the course of the debate, so perhaps I can turn myself briefly to a slightly different topic. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans referred to the degradation of the high street consequent on the presence of so many betting shops. I was watching BBC News only a few weeks ago when it did a report, spread over several bulletins, of even greater degradation on the high streets. This involves the takeover of many of our high streets, not necessarily in pleasant county towns, but in many of our cities, by so-called barber shops, which never have any customers, and mini-markets that never sell anything, or they do because if you want to get some illegal cigarettes, with no tax paid, obviously—that is taken for granted—often imported cigarettes with no recognisable branding, which could contain anything at all, then that is the place to go. You will get them for a couple of pounds a packet, way below the price that you would pay for a legitimate packet of cigarettes. That is their main business —that and money laundering. The fact that they are so inherently profitable on the proceeds of criminal activity means that no legitimate business can compete with them in terms of paying rent.
4:49 pm
20 of 26 shown
For example, there has been a rise in the number of charity shops, which benefit from substantial business rates relief and often have lower staffing costs, making them better able to afford high street rents. Fast food businesses were also cited as being better able to afford tenancies.
Public authorities are also tentatively moving public-facing services, such as surgeries and libraries, on to high streets. This can both improve access to those civic functions and increase footfall to sustain local businesses. The committee found that, in needing to appeal to all sections of society and ages, people should feel safe through better light, clear sightlines and mixed use of properties; that more green space and an “improved public realm”, while not able to withstand the tide of change, have a role to play; and that there needs to be better access to toilets, especially for older people and those with young children. The committee also noted the importance of recognising and celebrating the local history of an area to encourage pride.
The planning system, taxation and funding can all impact the success or failure of projects to revive local places. The Government’s local growth funding reforms must ensure that high streets are enabled to flourish in the long term, and that those responsible for their future have enough expertise to deliver improvements. The Government should recognise that local authority bidding for central funding has become expensive and wasteful and should consider replacing that approach with a transparent system of funding distribution that commands greater confidence.
There are too many recommendations to mention them all today—many of them seem common sense and, to me at least, easy to implement—but there is one final thing I wish to say. The committee received a response from the Government at the start of the year. While we appreciate their response and stated commitment to high streets, ultimately we felt disappointed that the response did not adequately address all our points. We respectfully urge the Government to look again at our report and do their utmost to enable local authorities and other stakeholders to ensure that the nation’s high streets survive and thrive for the next generation.
As a relatively new chair, as I have said, you inherit the sterling work of others and so you are able to come to past work completely afresh. When I was informed that I would have to lead this debate, I was a little nervous as to what the report said—that I would perhaps have to try valiantly to look for something upbeat and positive to say, hold back my personal views and speak through gritted teeth. But I can say, hand on heart, that I found this report refreshing. It is neither stale nor desperate to cling to some nostalgic world long gone by. It is brutal in its analysis and thorough, but also realistic about the prognosis and how high streets can flourish.
High streets continue to hold a special place in the nation’s hearts and will continue to do so in years to come. Across the country, members of the committee heard about local communities, businesses and authorities working together to respond to societal change and build thriving town centres. With the right support and empowerment, there is no reason why high streets cannot continue to be the centre of communities in future. I personally and sincerely hope that councils, the Government, local businesses and communities genuinely see this as an opportunity not just for debate but for change and local growth. I look forward to listening to all noble Lords’ contributions. I beg to move.
In short, the high street was a stage upon which all dramas played out. It was a marketplace for the community for centuries, but also the place where people met to learn, worship, celebrate, be judged or be improved, both young and old. Much of that community spirit has been retained, but we have lost small supermarkets, butchers, ironmongers, bookshops, post offices and banks. They have largely been replaced, as we have heard, by cafés, charity shops, estate agents, computer shops, hairdressers and nail bars. None of that is unique to Lewes, but it exemplifies in different ways what is happening across the country at different speeds. While the report makes clear that there is no single prescription for a monolithic high street, there would never have been and will never be one.
There are universal explanations for the changes we have seen. The noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, has already touched on retail. My figures show that between March 2020 and March 2022, 9,300 retail units were closed. PwC found that in the first half of 2024 there was a net loss of 2,284. Often, it is the large department stores and chain stores that go first and are most vulnerable. That has been driven by a combination of factors, such as online shopping, which was furiously accelerated by Covid, unaffordable business rates, poor public transport and parking, a run-down and often sordid public realm with few places where people can socialise without paying for it, neglected green spaces, empty churches and a general air of neglect and alienation. It is not a universal condition, but these are universal challenges, and we discuss them all in the report.
This is not a party-political issue. It is a social and economic challenge. The previous Government threw up a host of complex programmes for the medium and short term, which were warmly greeted, but, as the NAO and various reports said, they did not seem to understand what had worked on the high street and the impact of complex funding arrangements. We heard all about that from our witnesses, who said that they have a new funding application to consider every day, and that in the context of a rundown of public capacity.
Our report recognised that the previous Government had made an attempt to plan for the longer term, but in the short term we said that a clear strategy is needed, based on clear leadership, greater local capacity to develop the high street and town centre and ways of involving the community—for example, town centre managers with training and expertise charged with co-ordinating and driving development and more inclusive and engaged partnership for business improvement districts. The report illustrates what we mean by reference to places such as Frome in Somerset. It also needs long-term, sustained investment. The Budget this year confirmed the 75 neighbourhood partnerships and a revised prospectus. Will the Minister say when we can expect the revised prospectus? Why and how will it be different?
We focus on some specific issues, including housing, transport and community engagement. We have had the repurposing of empty department stores or offices for affordable housing under permitted development relaxation, but we have also seen a failure of quality and design and a missed opportunity. We recommended, for example, a review of the use of class E properties. Will this happen? When will we see a review of permitted development rights? We are told that they are in train. What do the Government think they can achieve in terms of good transport and good parking, which they say has a local role? What will be the impact of local government reorganisation on capacity?
One of the core questions is how we support business in the high street. The chain stores are unlikely to come back. The future will lie with those small, necessary, ingenious businesses that we all love and cherish, such as excellent bakers, plant shops or exciting children’s bookshops. These are the reasons people come to the high street. The Government say they will publish their small business strategy. When will it be published? Will it specifically address the issue of the high street? Will the Government maintain the priority given to the town centre-first retail policy within the NPPF? Will they, when they review business rates, have particular regard to the need to consider and simplify the range of business rates relief schemes to support the high street?
We found reasons to be cheerful. We found innovation, leadership and good practice, which can turn terminal decay, if not decline, into a new proposition. The report is full of examples of innovation, such as teenage markets and regeneration through the heritage action zones. Whether it is churches that have lost their congregations or cinemas that have closed, historic buildings are invaluable assets for their social and collective possibility. The ability to buy those to turn them into local markets, child centres, workshops and climate hubs can really engage people in reimagining what the high street could look like.
We were told by young people, businesspeople and local leaders alike to give the community more power to design the future they want. They want to be involved in this new vision for their high street. The Government have said that they intend
“to commence a package of plan-making reforms … to improve the quality of community engagement”.
Where have we got to on that? The Government say they will invest in initiatives to boost town and city centres, including high street accelerators. I do not really know what that means. I would be grateful for a further explanation.
One of the most positive and popular developments is to reimagine the high street as the place where things can get done and not just bought. The opportunities are there to put in place some of those public services which have disappeared from view because they are increasingly online, and the people who lose out are the people who are in greatest need—the poor, the elderly, the young—who want to talk to somebody, who want advice face to face.
For example, my high street now has a brilliant local authority outlet where complicated questions about a new garden waste bin—I will not bore the Committee with the details—can be sorted in five minutes rather than five hours online. The possibilities are endless: housing offices; walk-in surgeries for routine vaccinations and diagnostic tests; toy libraries for young mums with small babies and giant buggies; repair cafés for the things that have to be thrown away because there is nobody to repair them; empty shop windows where the local university can show some of the work it is doing; empty shops that can be converted into pop-up galleries for FE art students to display their work—the ideas are endless and excellent and they are there, in the community, waiting to be put into place with imagination. They are about experience and quality, not retail.
Our report creates an imaginative future for the high street. I really hope that the Government will take it and do something with its recommendations as part of their wider set of policy proposals.
“Public toilets make it possible for everyone to use the local high street with confidence and comfort”.
Local authorities need to be proactive in finding ways to provide such an essential facility. It is one of the most basic health and dignity issues, but there has been a shocking decline in provision of public toilets.
Accessibility was also found to be lacking, by and large. I will not spend a lot of time on transport and car parking, but that was an important issue, as was access for wheelchairs and those using walking frames, for example. I have recently begun to notice how incredibly important this is, since my husband had a stroke. You notice how there are so few dropped pavements, for example, which would make life so much easier.
The timing of the Government’s response was quite difficult because there was an election between publication of our report and the response. Perhaps one of the most disappointing parts of this Government’s response was on parish and town councils. As the local authorities most involved in their community, they are ideally placed to be the most proactive in high street revival, but the Government’s response to our suggestion that they should be able to bid directly for funds was only that they
“will continue to look at”
it. I hope the Minister will be able to say a bit more today and that we will be able to debate this further in the forthcoming devolution Bill.
One of the most compelling sections of our report is that which concerns public service delivery, which the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, touched on. We heard that the public are very keen to have NHS services located on or relocated to the high street, not least because the transport links may well be better and because it increases footfall for businesses. We heard evidence from Councillor Vikki Slade, who was the council leader in Poole and is now MP for Mid Dorset and North Poole. She explained how the public services they had introduced to ex-retail space—an NHS out-patient centre, a library and some charity space—had “completely reinvigorated the town”. Of course, the big traditional department stores have closed and the challenge facing many high streets is what to do with that space. We heard from Barnsley, whose local authority had to be pretty dogged, frankly—given its setbacks—to arrive at its Glass Works redevelopment project, which includes open space, an NHS diagnostics centre, a market and much more.
Success stories are out there, from small towns to small cities, but sometimes that has been despite the propensity of central government to change funding models so often. The previous Government had a very time-consuming and wasteful bidding process. One of our main recommendations, in paragraphs 173 and 174, is that there is still a role for an appropriate bidding process, but it must be highly simplified and possibly involve a two-stage system with a simple initial bid that would be developed if successful. The Government acknowledged this in their response and mentioned the reform to the long-term plan for towns. Can the Minister tell us any more about that today?
Another issue we heard a lot about was green space. Our evidence underlined the value of having space in which to socialise and spend time without having to spend money—a point emphasised to us by the young people we engaged with. I thank those involved in the House of Lords engagement programme, who produced some very lively groups of young people. We heard that it is not just about prettifying with hanging baskets; it is about usable space.
There is plenty of evidence, too, about the benefit of green space and nature to mental health and physical well-being. Here, I have to praise Lambeth Council, which, in the 20 years that I have had a flat in the borough, has transformed many of its green spaces, including with things such as outdoor gyms. It is fantastic. This does not seem to be controversial until developers realise that green spaces are a cost to them and local authorities could see them as a cost, as they produce no rates or council tax. There is no national statutory green space standard, but it is reasonable to hope that the Planning and Infrastructure Bill might have a genuine element of seeing green space as critical to good development.
Things to appreciate in the Government’s response include high street rental auctions and community right to buy. The Government correctly said in their response:
“High streets matter … because they reflect the wider state of the economy and the public realm”.
That is very true. Valuing the public realm is, to me, the essence of what we should be looking for and enabling in a high street. The private realm has been good at looking after its own and I hope this report makes a contribution to rebalancing that trend.
Linked to celebration of local history is the existence of markets. Many markets to this day still operate under historic charters or local laws. We received evidence that around 80% of markets are owned and operated by local authorities. They enhance the vitality of a local high street, increase footfall and can act as catalysts for new businesses. We strongly recommend that local authorities and other market operators should continue to support market traders.
A thriving high street also needs attractive, well-designed and sustainable public space, notably including green areas. We heard about the value of people having space to socialise and spend time—without necessarily spending money—on the high street. Our committee undertook an engagement event with students from Lancaster and Shrewsbury; they told us that they want to see more and safer green spaces, giving them space to hang out and socialise. Ensuring that there are clean and well-maintained places for young people to socialise can contribute to the high street being used by a larger proportion of the community. This, in turn, can improve footfall and hence sustain local businesses and public services.
Secondly, who needs to be involved in making a successful high street? Ideally, landlords, business owners, local community members and local authorities all need to be involved. A sense of community, local pride and belonging—in other words, pride in place—is widely recognised as a vital ingredient for a thriving high street.
A Private Member’s Bill, the High Streets (Designation, Review and Improvement Plan) Bill, introduced by Jack Brereton in the House of Commons and sponsored by the noble Lord, Lord Whitby, in this House, received its Second Reading in this House in May 2024. Unfortunately, the Bill, which had cross-party support, did not progress in time before Parliament was dissolved for the general election in July 2024. It would have required all local authorities in England to designate at least one street, or a network of streets if appropriate, as a high street in their area.
Once in place, improvement plans would need to be reviewed at least once every five years. Consultation would have played a key role in the development of improvement plans. Local authorities would have been required to consult on the designation of high streets, as well as on the plans themselves. Ensuring community buy-in and support for a designated improvement plan for high streets was a particularly welcome feature of that Private Member’s Bill. Will the Minister support this principle and will the Government consider introducing a similar Bill?
Local planning policy is clearly a key determinant in the future of successful and thriving high streets. The previous Government amalgamated a number of use classes within the planning system into a single use class E to increase flexibility in building usage and revitalise city centres. It allows change in use across existing commercial, business and service buildings, without the need for planning permission. For example, a retail shop could be converted into a café, or an office into flats. Our committee noted that the introduction of use class E in the planning system has made high streets more adaptable.
However, too many retail premises converted into flats could have a damaging effect on the success of a thriving high street. If most of the shops were converted into flats, the character and vitality of a high street would change radically. We therefore recommended that the Government should undertake a review of the policy of expansion of permitted development rights to convert use class E properties into homes; there is a need to examine the impact that this is having on high streets relative to the number and quality of new homes delivered.
In response, the Government stated that it was important to achieve a balance—a balance between business owners and landlords adapting buildings and the ability of local authorities to implement improvement strategies for high streets. Consequently, the Government are not currently intending to review the policy regarding use class E properties, but are keeping this position under review. The noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, referred to this. Can the Minister confirm that this is still the Government’s position? Does he agree that the use class E policy potentially risks damaging the vitality of high streets?
Thirdly and finally, what role should government have in funding high street improvements? Our committee received evidence that there is a wide range of different government programmes providing funding to local authorities for high street regeneration, but the wide range is confusing and lacks policy clarity. Moreover, the bidding system for awarding funding has historically been inefficient and costly for local authorities applying for funding. As we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, this is time-consuming and a strain on already limited resources for local authorities. Our committee therefore recommended that any future programmes created as part of the local growth funding reforms should have a highly simplified bidding process.
We also recommended that the Government consider implementing a two-stage bidding process, with a simplified, cursory first stage. This would ensure wider participation by local authorities in bidding for funds for much-needed and vital improvements to their high streets. Can the Minister give an assurance that a simplified bidding system will soon be available? This would greatly assist local authorities in the often much-needed regeneration of their high streets.
I note also that in His Majesty’s Government’s response to the report, they stated that
“a fuller policy response was in development”,
and that they would have more to say on their plans to rejuvenate high streets soon. I hope that this debate can inform and shape that process, as I know there is a great deal of wisdom and expertise here in the Room today.
I will briefly make three points about the challenges of rejuvenating high streets and town centres. First, this is often a crisis that hits rural communities particularly hard, including smaller towns and high streets that may have just a few premises. I made this point in the debate in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, on small businesses a few weeks ago, and I believe it is pertinent here too. The Government’s response to the report highlighted how the plan for change will support
“the future success of our high streets … from growing the economy to safer streets”,
as well as by devolving power away from Westminster and back into the hands of local communities through the English devolution White Paper.
However, as I have pointed out on a number of occasions, none of these policy papers or pieces of legislation has come forward with any obvious rural-proofing or evidence that the specific challenges and circumstances facing rural communities have been considered. From the National Planning Policy Framework to concerns raised about the circumstances of devolution, from rural areas subsumed into large unitary authorities to the industrial growth strategy, consideration of the needs of rural communities and businesses is being consistently neglected. This will come at a cost to the Government’s own growth mission.
I have referred in the past to the Pragmatix report commissioned by the Rural Coalition, titled Reigniting Rural Futures. It lays out an economic analysis showing the comparative underperformance of the UK’s rural economy and urban areas, compared with their European counterparts, and that the UK’s rural economy has the potential, with the proper policy framework and investment in place, to contribute a further £19 billion in tax receipts to the Exchequer.
Secondly, I want to comment briefly on the need for us to be imaginative about how we develop town centres. Here I am thinking about something that is close to my own heart: how we can maximise and use our historic buildings—among them, parish churches. Ever since I have been a bishop, I have been on a mission to try to get every one of our parish churches unlocked every day. This is not always easy. In some town centres, it is particularly difficult—you may have groups of young people who are up to mischief—but, generally, we can achieve it. Interestingly enough, Ecclesiastical Insurance, which insures most of our church buildings, prefers open churches in principle because, if a church is locked, it says that there is something valuable to pinch. We need to get people into the buildings; the more they are used, the better.
In the long term, the best solution for all our historic listed buildings is to find good everyday use. There are lots of places where churches have not only managed to open their premises but had a win-win solution, where, perhaps, some sort of glass screen has been put up in a side aisle built on in the Victorian era. I think of, for example, All Saints in Hereford and St Michael’s in Bath, which developed much-needed facilities so that they could have a small café in the back while retaining the church as a place of worship. But to do that, we need a can-do attitude from our conservation officers. Sometimes, we also need helpful pump-priming, because the issues of access and disability are often far more difficult in these ancient buildings. I believe that, if we can only find a way to work together, we can find solutions that will enhance the experience of coming to our high streets.
My third and final point is about betting shops. Some noble Lords will know that I was the person who managed to get this House’s Select Committee on the social and economic costs of gambling, and that I am proud to be a vice-president of Peers for Gambling Reform. Our town centres are full of betting premises. It almost feels as though, every time a post office or WH Smith closes, what pops up is a betting shop; we can debate whether to call them shops as it could be argued that the only product they sell is, of course, debt. Many residents and councils are fed up with them, and the evidence shows that many of these shops are concentrated in our most deprived communities. The honourable Member for Brent East in the other place, Dawn Butler, recently raised the fact that there are more gambling premises in her constituency than there are supermarkets and schools. That is surely an extraordinary state of affairs; I find it hard to believe that such a vast number of gambling premises is in anyone’s vision of an attractive high street.
I remember being interviewed on the radio when there was some threat over the closure of betting shops. I was sitting in a mobile studio outside my house. They were trying to find people; it was in Rochdale, I think. I was surprised that everybody interviewed was against having these betting shops. Afterwards, I said to the editor of the programme, “You’re going to get criticised because you weren’t being unbiased”. He said, “We couldn’t find anybody who wanted to speak for them. We’ve tried. We keep asking people to help us with it”.
The crux of this issue is the aim in the Gambling Act 2005 to permit provision, which places a legal duty on councils to aim to permit gambling. Brent Council, along with 40 other councils, is leading a campaign to reform the 2005 Act so that we can protect our high streets from being swamped by these betting shops. If the Government are serious about devolving power to local government, councils must be empowered to act on this issue.
I would be grateful if the Minister could pass on my comments to his colleagues in the DCMS and the DHSC —arguably, this issue cuts across the MHCLG too. If we are serious about growth and regenerating our high streets, we need to tackle the unprecedented surge in gambling premises, which take money out of those local communities and send it elsewhere. The evidence is that, if you decrease the number of premises, more money will be spent locally. We need to address this issue.
A prime example has been the Arcadia empire of Philip Green, which was created by the leveraged acquisitions of numerous businesses. Existing assets served as collateral for borrowings that were used to finance further acquisitions. In the process, Philip Green accumulated a personal wealth almost unprecedented in Britain. The sources of this wealth were the assets of the businesses that he had acquired. Many of these businesses had owned their own premises. They were sold by Green to the institutional investors of the property market. The consequence was that, when major trading losses arose, the property owners were able to call time on his businesses. There were no resources, other than Green’s personal wealth, available to sustain the businesses during the economic downturn. The truth of the matter was revealed when Green was able to sell British Home Stores for £1, without personal loss to himself, until he was constrained to supplement the pension fund.
The other side of the story concerns much smaller high street businesses that have suffered closure. The committee’s report reveals a startling fact about the landlords and property owners in the high street. A survey of 22 British high streets conducted in 2019 found that only 5.3% of retail and leisure units were owned by their current occupiers. As with much larger businesses, the retailers lacked the capital to sustain the temporary losses occasioned by an economic downturn and the businesses were forced to close.
The properties in question are liable to feature as entries on spreadsheets of large institutional investors, which have little incentive and little ability to quickly find occupants to replace those who are departing. Occupants might be found more quickly if property owners were inclined to reduce their rents; doing so would reduce the number or value of their assets and they would prefer to leave their properties empty for longer.
A further detriment arises from the remote ownership of commercial bodies, which affects their upkeep. Neither the owners nor the current occupants have a sufficient incentive to enhance the properties since any investment undertaken by one of the parties will be to the substantial benefit of the other party. The division of responsibilities for the upkeep of properties is typically determined by clauses in the lease, and these vary widely from case to case.
In Britain, there is a small and diminishing residue of municipal ownership within high streets. If a landlord is a local authority and if they have access to funds, then favourable opportunities for enhancement or the regeneration of a property or the wider environment can arise. However, this is an uncommon circumstance. It is notable that the circumstances are very different in neighbouring European countries. In Holland, for example, large proportions of town centre properties are under municipal ownership, and this is outwardly reflected in the superior upkeep of these locations.
A question to be faced is: what can the Government do to alleviate the distress of our high streets? The answer is that very little can be done, unless local authorities, development corporations and other relevant bodies are given the funds to enable them to undertake significant developments of high street environments. The high streets must be made more attractive, and they must cater to developing circumstances. Amenities must be brought to the high streets to replace the retail outlets that are closing. We have heard suggestions that doctors’ surgeries, libraries, restaurants and leisure activities should be attracted to the high streets. If the high streets and adjacent streets have been cleared of motorised traffic, then adequate public transport must be provided and parking facilities in adjacent areas must be established.
However, the question of funding is paramount. The report criticises the chaotic system of special funds that are available to local authorities, which are invited to compete for them. In many cases, it is too time-consuming for a local authority to make a bid when there is little chance of succeeding. Attempts to reform the system are, I hope, under way. The principal source of funds for local authorities is local taxation, which consists of domestic rates and business rates. We are led to understand that, in the future, 70% of a local authority’s income will be raised locally. A large proportion of this income will come from business rates, of which the councils will keep 50%. This will give them, so it has been said, a real incentive to go for growth and encourage enterprise and job creation.
The problem with rates being raised on properties is that they bear only a tenuous relationship to the income of the householder or to the turnover of a business, and they are often subject to angry resentments. However, it must be a priority to reform the system of local taxation and, in the process, to make it more productive of revenue. This will require the replacement of the rates by local income taxes and local turnover taxes.
This is not merely a social failure but an economic one. The spending power of disabled people and their households, commonly referred to as the “purple pound”, is estimated at £274 billion—a potential revenue that our high streets are actively losing due to inaccessibility. I recognise what others have said about old shops not necessarily being easy to adapt, but not all access is hard to achieve. It is about being creative, putting a notice outside the shop door or having a buzzer; it is about being open to thinking differently.
A disabled person recently shared an experience with me. He was visiting his local high street and was unable to access a shop due to the steps at the entrance, so his wife had to go inside to ask whether the shop had a ramp. It turns out that it did, but there was no way of knowing this from outside the shop. He told me that, if he had been alone, he would not even have bothered waiting outside or trying to shout through the door; he simply would have moved on. Many shops already have ramps and basic accessibility measures in place, but it is clear that visible communication is missing from our high streets.
I welcome the report’s recommendation to improve transport access to our high streets, but public transport still leaves a lot to be desired. While I greatly support improving bus networks for better connectivity, there is no promise that that will improve the journeys of disabled people.
Just last night, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, was informed when she was trying to get on a bus that the law has changed—supposedly—and that wheelchair users no longer have priority on board. The law has not changed, but this is not an infrequent experience for disabled people.
It is essential to the growth of our high streets that any changes to transport access must consider disabled people. Car parking spaces should account for adaptive vehicles and accessible EV charging. There is a woeful lack of EV charging ports available to disabled people across the country. About two years ago, I tried to change my car to an electric car and I found that there were no accessible charging points within at least a 40-mile radius of my house, so I could not switch.
In certain towns, EV charging spaces have been put on top of existing disabled bays. While there is no legal requirement to have a certain number of disabled bays in a car park, it is abhorrent that access for disabled people is continually being taken away. As such, I urge all local authorities to consult disabled people at all stages of regeneration projects. By including disabled people from the outset, local authorities will not risk having to spend more money down the line to make their towns more accessible.
I am also very interested in how we can use high street regeneration projects to drive growth among the UK’s physical activity sector, as previously reported by ukactive. There is a huge opportunity to integrate physical activity and well-being provision within communities by regenerating underutilised properties—shops, restaurants and vacant office spaces—into new, accessible and budget-friendly facilities.
Regeneration projects will benefit greatly from the inclusion of physical activity and sport; by creating healthier, more vibrant communities you are improving social conditions and making happier citizens. However, under current planning laws, it is easier to open a chicken shop than a yoga studio. If the Government are invested in promoting healthier lifestyles and decreasing obesity rates, why do they continue to make it a challenge for those who just want to improve the health and well-being of their communities?
I value my local high street. I love it: I love the eclectic nature of the shops and how people are trying really hard to make it more accessible, but there is still so much work that we have to do to make sure that disabled people have the same ability as non-disabled people to access local high streets.
We see this in the heart of London. You see premises of this character even in Oxford Street, which is meant to be our showcase high street—our showcase retail street—for the nation. The news bulletin on the BBC showed raids being carried out by local trading standards officers, but I think behind them were His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the National Crime Agency to some extent, so the authorities are aware. These are only the surface—the epiphenomena—of a network that brings crime and misery internationally. I hope that when the Minister replies he will be able to say that the Government are cognisant of what is now a serious threat to many of our high streets and that action will be taken across a broad front, not simply occasionally for the benefit of TV cameras, although I do not mean to deprecate in any sense the effort that was made to bring enforcement on that particular occasion. I hope that this will be carried out on a broad front, because it is a profound threat to our high streets and one that, sadly, the committee did not have an opportunity to explore, so I am glad to mention it now.