Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Lamont and Neil O'Brien

Monday 29th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

10. What assessment he has made of the potential effect of the community renewal fund on local communities’ preparedness for the introduction of the UK shared prosperity fund in the Scottish Borders.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Neil O'Brien)]

The UK community renewal fund and its successor, the UK shared prosperity fund, are examples of how we will have more flexibility to support communities now that we have left the EU. The CRF is funding eight projects in the Borders including on employment support, skills development and environmental sustainability. That will help to pilot new approaches and is helping to inform the design of the UK SPF.

[John Lamont]

I was delighted to see eight successful projects from the Scottish Borders secure funding from the community renewal fund. It is brilliant to see the United Kingdom Government delivering in all parts of this kingdom. I want to see even more successful bids from the UK shared prosperity fund, so will the Minister come to my constituency to visit the Burnfoot Community Futures trust to discuss how its application might be as strong as possible?

[Neil O'Brien]

I would be delighted to have an excuse to get back up to the Borders.

Housing and Planning

Debate between John Lamont and Neil O'Brien

Tuesday 3rd March 2020 Westminster Hall

[Neil O'Brien]

I certainly agree that it would be desirable to get rid of outline planning permission, which many developers use to get a foot in the door and then have councils over a barrel. However, if we are going to give councils the power to have a proper plan-led system, we need to ensure that we have a better system for development to pay its own way.

Part of the opposition to new housing comes from the fact that too often it comes without the necessary infrastructure. Without new schools or roads, the GP’s surgery and everything around the new housing becomes more congested and, of course, people object to that. People see developers making humungous profits while the infrastructure is either not provided at all or the cost is dumped on the taxpayer.

Section 106, the way in which councils currently get developer contributions, is totally dysfunctional. Councils cannot use it to fund recurrent expenditure or anything that meets an existing need in the community. It can only fund a new need that is tied to the new development. Contributions are tied to specific purposes, so if what the community wants changes in five years’ time, that is tough luck.

Given that collection is fragmented among lots of authorities—fire, police, health, county and district councils—developers sometimes get away without paying. They can hold off making payments by staying below certain trigger thresholds, and if they are able to hold off for long enough, the opportunity to build a new village hall, for example, is often lost. If a community has only rolled up enough contributions within a specific time period to pay for half a new school, for example, then it gets nothing and the money goes back to the developers. In 2014, the BBC found that councils had returned to developers £1.5 billion that had been intended for the community. When my constituents read that, they are outraged.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on making an excellent speech about these important issues. A number of housing developments that have been built in my constituency over the past few years do not have adequate broadband connections. Does he agree that investment in infrastructure should be extended to include connectivity? Developers and councils should work together to ensure that no new developments can be constructed until adequate broadband connections have been demonstrated.

[Neil O'Brien]

My hon. Friend is right. Broadband is one of the benefits that people seek from new development. Mandates are one potential way to secure such benefits. The broader change that I would like to be made is the removal of all restrictions that depend on section 106 and for the system to be replaced with something that is more fit for purpose.

Beyond the need to create a better system for contributions, we need to give councils other tools to create better quality and more planned development. In my constituency, there is an old rubber factory that is two minutes’ walk from a mainline station, which is only an hour from London. It is the perfect site to build on, but despite the fact that the council gave planning permission in 2004, nothing has happened because there is nothing to disincentivise the owners from simply sitting on their hands. We need to learn from the USA and from other countries in Europe, and give councils the power to buy land, to grant themselves planning permission and to take more of a leading role in development. The current situation is a legal minefield, so I believe we should reform the Land Compensation Act 1961.