Asked by: Baroness Jowell (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their estimate of the number of people who are street homeless in London for each year since 2010.
Answered by Baroness Williams of Trafford - Shadow Chief Whip (Lords)
One person without a home is one too many and we are committed to doing all we can to prevent homelessness. That is why we have increased central investment to tackle homelessness over the next four years to £139 million.
This will include a new national £10 million programme to support innovative ways to tackle rough sleeping, and will build on the success of our No Second Night Out initiative, which saw two-thirds of rough sleepers in London come off the streets after a single night.
DCLG publishes regular statistics on rough sleeping. These are available (the latest figures are attached) at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/rough-sleeping-in-england-autumn-2015
The GLA collects more detailed statistics on rough sleeping in London. These are available at: http://data.london.gov.uk/dataset/chain-reports
Asked by: Baroness Jowell (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of community cohesion in view of the reduction in discretionary spending available to local authorities in London.
Answered by Baroness Williams of Trafford - Shadow Chief Whip (Lords)
Britain has a claim to be the most successful multi-faith, multi-racial democracy in the world. Nowhere exemplifies this more than London – a thriving global city with a
diverse population.
It is up to the councils in London to decide what to spend their money on and reforms are giving them more powers over their budgets than ever before.
The Community Life Survey 2014/15 reports that 89 per cent of people in London feel that their local area is a place where people from different backgrounds get on
well together. Full data is available (attached) from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/447015/Community_Life_Survey_2014-2015_csv.csv/preview
But we are not complacent. The Prime Minister has asked Louise Casey to carry out a review on how to boost opportunity and integration in the most isolated
communities in Britain, the findings of which will inform a new Cohesive Communities programme.
Asked by: Baroness Jowell (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:
To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, what written representations his Department received on the introduction of a vacant building credit in 2014.
Answered by Brandon Lewis
The Department for Communities and Local Government carried out a public consultation in March 2014 to invite views and local evidence on proposed changes to national policy on the issue of Section 106 tariffs being imposed on empty buildings being brought back into use. All evidence submitted was carefully considered. The new policy was outlined in my Written Ministerial Statement of 28 November 2014, Official Report, Column 55WS. The purpose of the credit is to provide an incentive that will help regenerate empty and redundant buildings.
I can confirm that we have also undertaken an Equality Impact Assessment, which I will arrange to be placed in the Library. We do not consider our reforms will have a negative impact on discrimination, fostering good relations or advancing equality of opportunity.
We do not believe that our reforms will have any significant adverse effect on our affordable housing programme. We have so far delivered 217,000 new affordable homes since 2010, and are bringing in £19.5 billion of public and private in affordable housing over the current Spending Review period. In the next Parliament, we are on track to deliver a further 275,000 new affordable homes, backed up by £38 billion of public and private investment.
Planning guidance is kept under review and is updated as required, and we are open to representations on any practical areas where further assistance is needed to help facilitate the implementation of new policy.
I would note:
· The policy changes are aimed at providing a clear incentive for brownfield regeneration, whilst supporting the Government’s policies of protecting the Green Belt and increasing housing supply.
· The relief is intended to reflect the often higher costs of conversion and refurbishment and bringing an existing building back into use. Our reforms will help increase development and regeneration, providing more homes at no cost to the taxpayer.
· Such re-use of existing buildings has a limited impact on local infrastructure; however, any increase in floor space would still be liable for Section 106 tariffs.
· The Government had already amended regulations for the Community Infrastructure Levy which extend an existing credit for vacant buildings being brought back into use from the levy. This applies either where buildings are brought back into the same use, or for a change of use provided they have not been “abandoned” and have been in use for at least six months in the last three years. In either case the levy is only charged on any increase in floor space. Our Section 106 reforms mirror those Community Infrastructure Levy reforms: this is a consistent, joined-up approach.
Our new policy was endorsed in the consultation by the likes of the Federation of Small Businesses, the Home Builders Federation, the London Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the British Property Federation. They said that the proposed policy would encourage the refurbishment and regeneration of brownfield sites and bring vacant buildings back into use, especially given the higher costs of building on previously developed land.
It is crazy to be putting stealth taxes on empty and redundant buildings being brought back into productive use, as it hinders regeneration and discourages new housing being created from conversions. I would note to the rt. hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood that one of the reasons why London house prices are so high is all the levies and charges placed on them. If the state puts heavy taxes on new housing, prices will rise and supply will fall; conversely, our reforms will help lower housing costs and increase housing supply.
Reflecting commitments made in the Coalition Agreement, getting empty and redundant buildings back into use is a key priority for this Government. Under the Coalition Government, the number of empty homes in England has so far fallen to a 10 year low. Our reforms will further support the conversion of empty buildings, and so deliver an economic, social and environmental benefit to society.
Asked by: Baroness Jowell (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:
To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, with reference to the Written Statement of 28 November 2014, HCWS50, whether any exemptions were considered in relation to the vacant building credit.
Answered by Brandon Lewis
The Department for Communities and Local Government carried out a public consultation in March 2014 to invite views and local evidence on proposed changes to national policy on the issue of Section 106 tariffs being imposed on empty buildings being brought back into use. All evidence submitted was carefully considered. The new policy was outlined in my Written Ministerial Statement of 28 November 2014, Official Report, Column 55WS. The purpose of the credit is to provide an incentive that will help regenerate empty and redundant buildings.
I can confirm that we have also undertaken an Equality Impact Assessment, which I will arrange to be placed in the Library. We do not consider our reforms will have a negative impact on discrimination, fostering good relations or advancing equality of opportunity.
We do not believe that our reforms will have any significant adverse effect on our affordable housing programme. We have so far delivered 217,000 new affordable homes since 2010, and are bringing in £19.5 billion of public and private in affordable housing over the current Spending Review period. In the next Parliament, we are on track to deliver a further 275,000 new affordable homes, backed up by £38 billion of public and private investment.
Planning guidance is kept under review and is updated as required, and we are open to representations on any practical areas where further assistance is needed to help facilitate the implementation of new policy.
I would note:
· The policy changes are aimed at providing a clear incentive for brownfield regeneration, whilst supporting the Government’s policies of protecting the Green Belt and increasing housing supply.
· The relief is intended to reflect the often higher costs of conversion and refurbishment and bringing an existing building back into use. Our reforms will help increase development and regeneration, providing more homes at no cost to the taxpayer.
· Such re-use of existing buildings has a limited impact on local infrastructure; however, any increase in floor space would still be liable for Section 106 tariffs.
· The Government had already amended regulations for the Community Infrastructure Levy which extend an existing credit for vacant buildings being brought back into use from the levy. This applies either where buildings are brought back into the same use, or for a change of use provided they have not been “abandoned” and have been in use for at least six months in the last three years. In either case the levy is only charged on any increase in floor space. Our Section 106 reforms mirror those Community Infrastructure Levy reforms: this is a consistent, joined-up approach.
Our new policy was endorsed in the consultation by the likes of the Federation of Small Businesses, the Home Builders Federation, the London Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the British Property Federation. They said that the proposed policy would encourage the refurbishment and regeneration of brownfield sites and bring vacant buildings back into use, especially given the higher costs of building on previously developed land.
It is crazy to be putting stealth taxes on empty and redundant buildings being brought back into productive use, as it hinders regeneration and discourages new housing being created from conversions. I would note to the rt. hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood that one of the reasons why London house prices are so high is all the levies and charges placed on them. If the state puts heavy taxes on new housing, prices will rise and supply will fall; conversely, our reforms will help lower housing costs and increase housing supply.
Reflecting commitments made in the Coalition Agreement, getting empty and redundant buildings back into use is a key priority for this Government. Under the Coalition Government, the number of empty homes in England has so far fallen to a 10 year low. Our reforms will further support the conversion of empty buildings, and so deliver an economic, social and environmental benefit to society.
Asked by: Baroness Jowell (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:
To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, with reference to the Written Statement of 28 November 2014, HCWS50, whether an impact assessment was carried out on the proposal to introduce a vacant building credit and the effect of that proposal on the provision of new affordable housing.
Answered by Brandon Lewis
The Department for Communities and Local Government carried out a public consultation in March 2014 to invite views and local evidence on proposed changes to national policy on the issue of Section 106 tariffs being imposed on empty buildings being brought back into use. All evidence submitted was carefully considered. The new policy was outlined in my Written Ministerial Statement of 28 November 2014, Official Report, Column 55WS. The purpose of the credit is to provide an incentive that will help regenerate empty and redundant buildings.
I can confirm that we have also undertaken an Equality Impact Assessment, which I will arrange to be placed in the Library. We do not consider our reforms will have a negative impact on discrimination, fostering good relations or advancing equality of opportunity.
We do not believe that our reforms will have any significant adverse effect on our affordable housing programme. We have so far delivered 217,000 new affordable homes since 2010, and are bringing in £19.5 billion of public and private in affordable housing over the current Spending Review period. In the next Parliament, we are on track to deliver a further 275,000 new affordable homes, backed up by £38 billion of public and private investment.
Planning guidance is kept under review and is updated as required, and we are open to representations on any practical areas where further assistance is needed to help facilitate the implementation of new policy.
I would note:
· The policy changes are aimed at providing a clear incentive for brownfield regeneration, whilst supporting the Government’s policies of protecting the Green Belt and increasing housing supply.
· The relief is intended to reflect the often higher costs of conversion and refurbishment and bringing an existing building back into use. Our reforms will help increase development and regeneration, providing more homes at no cost to the taxpayer.
· Such re-use of existing buildings has a limited impact on local infrastructure; however, any increase in floor space would still be liable for Section 106 tariffs.
· The Government had already amended regulations for the Community Infrastructure Levy which extend an existing credit for vacant buildings being brought back into use from the levy. This applies either where buildings are brought back into the same use, or for a change of use provided they have not been “abandoned” and have been in use for at least six months in the last three years. In either case the levy is only charged on any increase in floor space. Our Section 106 reforms mirror those Community Infrastructure Levy reforms: this is a consistent, joined-up approach.
Our new policy was endorsed in the consultation by the likes of the Federation of Small Businesses, the Home Builders Federation, the London Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the British Property Federation. They said that the proposed policy would encourage the refurbishment and regeneration of brownfield sites and bring vacant buildings back into use, especially given the higher costs of building on previously developed land.
It is crazy to be putting stealth taxes on empty and redundant buildings being brought back into productive use, as it hinders regeneration and discourages new housing being created from conversions. I would note to the rt. hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood that one of the reasons why London house prices are so high is all the levies and charges placed on them. If the state puts heavy taxes on new housing, prices will rise and supply will fall; conversely, our reforms will help lower housing costs and increase housing supply.
Reflecting commitments made in the Coalition Agreement, getting empty and redundant buildings back into use is a key priority for this Government. Under the Coalition Government, the number of empty homes in England has so far fallen to a 10 year low. Our reforms will further support the conversion of empty buildings, and so deliver an economic, social and environmental benefit to society.
Asked by: Baroness Jowell (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:
To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, if he will place in the Library the minutes or meetings he and Ministers in his Department held with private developers in 2014 and the names of the people attending those meetings.
Answered by Brandon Lewis
Details of Ministers’ meetings with external organisations are published on-line as part of our transparency agenda. They are available at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications?departments%5B%5D=department-for-communities-and-local-government&publication_type=transparency-data
In line with established practice, names of all attendees and meeting minutes are not normally published.
Asked by: Baroness Jowell (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:
To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, if he will place in the Library the minutes and lists of attendees of meetings he and Ministers in his Department held with external organisations on the introduction of a vacant building credit in 2014.
Answered by Brandon Lewis
Details of Ministers’ meetings with external organisations are published on-line as part of our transparency agenda. They are available at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications?departments%5B%5D=department-for-communities-and-local-government&publication_type=transparency-data
In line with established practice, names of all attendees and meeting minutes are not normally published.
Asked by: Baroness Jowell (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:
To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, what assessment he has made of the revenue that would be generated from additional council tax bands on higher value homes, broken down by (a) the total revenue generated UK wide, (b) the total generated in the Greater London region and (c) a breakdown for each threshold and band value (i) UK wide and (ii) in the Greater London region.
Answered by Brandon Lewis
No assessment has been made as we have no intention of introducing higher council tax bands.
Council tax re-banding would require a wholesale council tax revaluation, hitting ordinary home owners with higher taxes, especially those who have undertaken home improvements. Fundamentally, council tax is not a wealth tax; it is a local charge for the use of local services. The current banded system is intentionally designed to avoid the flaws and inequities of both the poll tax and of domestic rates, the former which taxed multiple-adult homes too much, and the latter which taxed both family homes and pensioner households too much.
I would note that the last Labour Government and Welsh Assembly Government jointly undertook a council tax revaluation and re-banding exercise in Wales in 2005. Four times as many homes moved up one or more bands than moved down. Two-thirds of the net rises were amongst homes (originally) in Bands A to C, meaning that those on more modest incomes were hardest hit.
Labour Ministers originally claimed that revaluation was revenue-neutral, but this was not the case. In the first year of the revaluation, council tax income rose by 10 per cent, of which 4 per cent was due to that year's increase in Band D rates, and 6 per cent due to more properties in higher bands due to the revaluation (Welsh Assembly Government, Submission to the Lyons Inquiry into Local Government, Annex B: Council Tax Revaluation and Rebanding 2005 Chronology and Facts, March 2006). To place that in context, a 6 per cent rise in council tax receipts in England would today represent a sustained tax increase on hard-working people of £1.4 billion a year, every year.
As the then Chairman of the Communities and Local Government Select Committee, Phyllis Starkey (then the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South West), observed: “The Welsh Assembly – I believe it was my party, but I am not making an excuse for it – took advantage of the revaluation hugely to increase the total [tax] take” (3 February 2010, Official Report, Column 383).
Instead of finding new ways to tax people, this Government has given extra funding to town halls to help freeze council tax. We cancelled any plans for a council tax revaluation. We have handed local residents new rights to veto big local tax hikes, so local people have the final say on the amount they pay. Council tax in England more than doubled under the Labour Government; under this Government, bills have fallen by 11 per cent in real terms, giving families financial security and helping hard-working people with the cost of living.