Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Carrington of Fulham Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 4th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sater (Con)]

My Lords, I will briefly support my noble friend Lord Moynihan’s important Amendment 99AA. The role of training can never be underestimated, and the importance and consistency of knowledge and skills introduced by training is very important. There is no statutory protection for playing fields, parks or playgrounds, and people are extremely concerned about the potential loss of the playing fields and parks in their communities. These open spaces are critical to preserve if we can because, once they are gone, we cannot get them back.

Diminishing any existing levels of scrutiny, especially with Sport England’s role as a consultee potentially being relinquished, could further impact the loss of our sports fields and physical activity spaces and facilities. We have heard from my noble friend Lord Moynihan about the desperate state of our swimming pools and sports centres.

A study by the Fields in Trust charity quantified the well-being value of parks and green spaces at £34 billion per annum. Frequently using these spaces results in better general health and reduced need to go to the GP, quantified as saving the NHS £111 million every year. It certainly goes a long way to help the NHS and it gets people, especially young people, active, playing sport and outdoors.

Work done by other organisations, including Fields in Trust and ukactive, is vital to sport and physical activity in this country. Training all members of local planning authorities and including an emphasis on healthy place-making, which includes planning adequate provision of sport and physical activity spaces and facilities, will help greatly to ensure that we have open spaces for sport and physical activity for future generations.

My noble friend Lord Moynihan said that this is his first of many amendments to several Bills. I will support him and would like to hear from others about these critical issues that will affect us in future. This amendment is important to ensure that planning officers have the skills and knowledge to deliver the planning outcomes that our local communities really need.

[Lord Carrington of Fulham (Con)]

My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, in his Amendment 99A on the training of planning officers to improve the environment and the appearance of the built environment. This is extremely important for lots of reasons, one of which is, obviously, that anything that makes our streetscapes more beautiful is to be encouraged. But it is more fundamentally important than that.

If we are to manage to build, as this Government tell us they will—previous Governments made the same claim—300,000 new homes every year, we will need to get local support for the homes to be built in local areas. In other words, it is no good trying to impose housing developments, new towns or whatever from the outside, without support from the local community. Local community support will be heavily dependent on the appearance of the development. If it fits in with the classic way of building in that local area, it is more likely to be accepted. If the buildings are diverse and beautiful, they are much more likely to be welcomed. If they end up being ticky-tacky little boxes all looking the same, I have to say that local opposition will be stirred up and might well be brought to a frenzy.

Housing: Modern Methods of Construction

Lord Carrington of Fulham Excerpts

Thursday 5th September 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Carrington of Fulham]

That this House takes note of the role of Modern Methods of Construction in the housing construction sector.

[Lord Carrington of Fulham (Con)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to introduce this debate and to propose this Motion. As many noble Lords will be aware, my noble friend Lord Moylan won the ballot for this debate, but he has been appointed to the Opposition Front Bench and so is unable to stand where I am standing. Fear not: he is on the list of speakers so he will get his two minutes’ worth to say what really should be said by me standing where I am. He is chairman of the Built Environment Select Committee and chaired our inquiry into modern methods of construction. I had the pleasure of serving on the committee during that inquiry, which is one of the reasons he asked me to speak today.

This debate comes at a time when our country is in desperate need of more housing. The previous Government had a target of 300,000 homes per annum. As I understand it, the new Government have a target of 1.5 million homes over the term of the Parliament, which noble Lords with a ready reckoner will quickly work out is the equivalent of 300,000 per annum, possibly back-loaded. There is considerable doubt, given the demographics of our country, whether either figure—300,000 or 1.5 million—is enough. It is certainly the minimum we need, but even so it has not been achieved in recent years. We got over 200,000 recently, but it looks as though this year the figure will be nearer 150,000. There is a strong case that we need an increase of 400,000 homes a year.

The problems in achieving this target have bedevilled housing Ministers for generations: our planning system, skills shortages in the building trades, and sometimes violent local opposition to new housing. MMC, as I shall call modern methods of construction for speed, could have a role in solving at least some of those problems. With MMC homes can be built fast, or faster than using traditional methods on-site, and it would go a long way towards resolving the dire shortage of skilled construction workers, whether they are bricklayers, plumbers, electricians, roofers or carpenters.

Perhaps I ought to explain what MMC is. Those of us of a certain age will remember prefabs, which after the Second World War were used to urgently house people made homeless by the Blitz. They were factory-built homes that could be transported on the back of a lorry to parks and open spaces, where they were then connected to the services—drains, water, electricity and gas. I remember many of them in Chiswick, where I was brought up. They were much loved by the tenants who lived in them, possibly because they were placed on public open spaces and had small gardens.

MMC is a modern version of that idea. The homes, or the components that are assembled to make up a home, are factory-built and then transported to the building site, which is preprepared with services such as foundations, sewerage, water and electricity. There are seven categories of MMC, and in ascending order they require increasing amounts of assembly on-site. I propose to concentrate only on types 1 and 2. The first is when the unit or home is fully finished in the factory and needs only to be lowered on to the foundations at the site and connected to the services. Type 2 is best described as a flat-pack version of type 1—or an IKEA tribute act—where the components of the structure are stuck together on-site. The other five MMC types have some benefits but require much more work to assemble them.

The advantages of MMC over traditional building methods are essentially that less skilled work is required on the site because the building work is done in a factory-controlled environment. This has major quality-control advantages, and therefore less snagging after completion, which is the curse of the building industry. The people building the home in the factory can be trained and supervised to a much higher standard, and use can be made of modern production techniques such as 3D printing. There are of course logistical benefits: building materials can be delivered in bulk and stored at the factory to be used as required.

However, there are problems. It requires a lot of capital investment to build the factory, train the workforce, establish reliable supply chains and buy the high-tech equipment required. If the factories can attract only small numbers of orders and no long-term commitments to place more, the unit costs of the homes are high—certainly as high as building homes in the conventional way. It is a bit of a vicious circle: high prices lead to few orders, and few orders lead to even higher prices. So it is perhaps not surprising that many of the companies that entered into this market have gone bust or just packed up and gone away.

The only way of solving this problem is to guarantee the suppliers of MMC homes a sufficiently large order book. Then we might end up with a virtuous circle, of full order books leading to highly competitive unit prices, giving speed of construction and higher quality. Why has that not happened? There has been resistance from planners, resistance from insurance companies and warrantee providers, and, in many cases, resistance from the big housebuilders. Last but not least, there has been vocal opposition from local communities concerned at dozens or hundreds of identical box homes being foisted on them.

Planning consent seems to be a major problem in some parts of the country. MMC should not find it more difficult to get planning permission than traditional housing, but there may be resistance by planners to new ideas, concern about ease of maintenance or worries about design quality. Perhaps building blocks of flats in urban areas using MMC should not cause a concern to planning authorities or to local residents, but, after Grenfell, the industry will need to demonstrate that MMC is as safe as, or safer than, conventional building methods.

The image and anticipation of tower blocks made up of factory-built units, identical and slotted together, is off-putting, so quality of design is vital for getting public acceptance. Even tower blocks need to be well designed. A beautiful tower designed by a talented architect can be a delight—you have only to look at some of the commercial and residential blocks designed by Mies van der Rohe—but, equally, housing estates or new towns of identical or near-identical homes are guaranteed to raise objections and opposition, which slows the planning process and, in worst cases, can blight a whole district. Good design makes getting planning consent easier and community acceptance more likely.

Variety of design is also important. The Built Environment Committee was told that MMC could be adapted to any finish. That may well be so, but the same unit with a brick finish, or tiles or wood cladding or whatever, will still be the same unit—rather like, in the immortal words of Sarah Palin, putting lipstick on a pig. What is needed is to incorporate brilliant design, with a wide variety of styles and floor-plans, as well as finishes, that respect the traditional materials of the region, to gain acceptance by planners and local communities.

We know from experience with MMC that the problems are not going to solve themselves, but solving them could bring massive benefits, with well-built, well-designed, varied houses and flats fitting into their communities, providing much-needed homes at a smaller price than traditional building methods and delivered much faster. It is worth noting that both the Netherlands and Germany use MMC extensively and with considerable success, so these problems can be resolved.

However, the industry cannot solve the problems on its own, nor can local authorities, with the budget and planning constraints they have. It will take a concerted effort by the Government, and perhaps Homes England, to ensure that the flow of orders for these homes allows for the capital investment required in the factories. Budget constraints must not be allowed to lose design quality and variety of floor-plan and materials, all of which will push up the cost. That will guarantee failure, through both the bankruptcy of the MMC companies and rejection by the local communities.

I guess the real question of this debate is whether the new Government are committed to acting as a midwife for this industry, helping it into the brave new world of rapid, cost-effective homebuilding, with all the financial support, design encouragement and tearing up of red tape that that entails. I look forward to this debate and, in particular, to the Minister’s reply, which I am sure will lay out the Government’s policy towards MMC.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Carrington of Fulham (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to everybody who has participated in this debate. It has been an extremely useful debate. I particularly commend the response of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, which answered most of our points and showed clearly that this is not a party-political issue; it is one on which there is consensus on both sides of the House. We all wish this industry to develop well. The points made in the debate highlighted the challenges that everybody involved in providing homes in this country will face to meet the demand that is there already.

I was deeply impressed by the quality of this debate and of the contributions to it. It is very sad that everybody except me and the Front-Bench speakers were limited to two minutes. The quality of the debate that we got in two minutes would, I believe, have gone up exponentially if we had had five or even 10 minutes for contributions.

With that, I thank everybody. It has been a good debate, and one that has taken forward the cause of revolutionising housebuilding in this country.

Motion agreed.