High-rise Buildings: Safety Remediation

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Monday 24th March 2025 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Young of Cookham]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress has been made on the remediation of high-rise buildings with safety defects.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)]

My Lords, before I answer the noble Lord’s question, I pay tribute to all the campaigners and survivors of Grenfell who have moved this along, following seven years when little progress was made. Now, over half of 18 metre-plus buildings identified with unsafe cladding have started or completed remediation. On 2 December last year the Deputy Prime Minister announced the remediation acceleration plan, which sets out key measures to get buildings with unsafe cladding fixed faster, identify remaining buildings still at risk and ensure that residents are supported through the remediation process. This Government have been clear about our intention to deliver remediation faster, with more action from freeholders and developers.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for that Answer. Since this Question was tabled, the Public Accounts Committee in another place has published a further progress report on remediation that is highly critical of this Government and indeed the last one. It points out that, of the 5,000 buildings known to the Minister’s department to require treatment, work has started on half, and that 3 million people are living in unsafe buildings, are unable to sell their flats and face exorbitant insurance claims. It also points out that the contract with developers did not require them to remedy all the safety defects. In the meantime, not a penny has been paid by the manufacturers of unsafe cladding. The PAC says that the date of 2029, by which all treatment should have been completed, is unrealistic. Surely we can do better than this.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right to say that we can do better, which is why we have introduced the remediation acceleration plan. The plan’s targets provide greater certainty to residents, a significant acceleration in pace and much greater certainty about when cladding remediation will be resolved. We have never had targets like these before. This Government have put in place a plan to deliver; it is now up to those responsible for making their buildings safe to do so. The plan has been criticised by campaigners for not being ambitious enough and by industry for being too ambitious and unachievable. All plans like this must strike a balance; we believe this plan gets the right balance and is ambitious but also achievable.

Plan for Neighbourhoods

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Monday 10th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I extend my appreciation to my noble friend for all the work that she does in this area. She speaks with great experience, skills and depth of knowledge.

I do not want to pre-empt the upcoming spending review by making any commitments to expansion, but I recognise that other places want to join the plan for neighbourhoods—this was raised also by several Members in the other place. While I cannot make any commitments, the Government welcome correspondence from interested parties. We have taken inspiration from the new deal for communities, the work of John Prescott that my noble friend was talking about, which provided the stability of long-term funding, backed by the support of central government. We have learned what has worked well in the past and are utilising that same methodology.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, like other noble Lords, I welcome the Statement, which builds on initiatives from previous Administrations. The noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, referred to her pioneering work at the beginning of this century. Going back even further, I was a Minister in the Department of the Environment in the 1980s. We had inner-city partnerships, where the Government provided two-thirds of the money and the local authority one third. We funded a range of projects exactly the same as the projects that are hoped for under this programme.

I can see a range of bids coming to the neighbourhood boards. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, mentioned improved recreation facilities. Looking through the Statement in the other place, I see there were demands for community shops. People may want to rescue a theatre. However, the first priority listed in the Statement is the modernisation of social housing. I am all in favour of social housing being modernised, but there is a mainstream programme to do that. To what extent will the smaller projects that I have been referring to and which the programme is aimed at be swamped by the modernisation of social housing? Is that really one of the objectives, or is that put in to patch up a deficiency in another mainstream government programme?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord makes a very interesting point. My only answer at this time is that, of course, as a country, we want to see the modernisation of social housing. The Deputy Prime Minister has announced that 1.5 million houses are to be built in this Parliament, and that is still the ambition, but the specifics of what the money can be spent on are entirely up to the local regeneration neighbourhood board—the people. They need to look at what the priorities are for their area and work out how they can put this £2 million a year into various projects. If that means putting some money into modernising housing, it is a decision for them to reflect upon. As central government, we have our focus and manifesto commitments on housing overall, but whatever is needed in the local area is for the board to deliberate and decide upon.

Private Rented Sector: Affordable Rents

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Thursday 27th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for his question. Of course, I am always happy to meet with trade union colleagues, particularly on important issues such as this. I thank him too for his reminder of the information in that UNISON report. Many of the issues raised in it are being tackled in the Renters’ Rights Bill, and in the leasehold and commonhold reform Bill which we will be bringing forward later in the year. On the right to buy, we have already taken significant steps to make sure that the funds from the sale of social housing go back to those councils to enable them to build more social housing.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, further to the Question from the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, rents in the private sector are rising because supply is falling as many smaller landlords decide to sell up. While there is much of value in the Renters’ Rights Bill, there is nothing in it to increase supply, which is what tenants want. Will the Minister turbocharge the discussions between her department, the Treasury and the pension funds and insurance companies in order to get serious, long-term institutional finance into good quality accommodation for rent and to redress the imbalance between supply and demand?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his question and for all his expertise on this subject. A few weeks ago, I attended an investors’ summit in the City of London where there was great enthusiasm about investment in the housing market. We welcome those institutional investors and recognise the crucial role that the build-to-rent sector in particular is playing in building those 1.5 million homes. Last year, we announced a £700 million extension to the home building fund to support housebuilders and to catalyse that institutional investment. This should support the construction of 12,000 more homes, including build-to-rent. We also announced a £3 billion guarantee for SME and build-to-rent housebuilders through the reopening of guarantee schemes, which should deliver the construction of around 20,000 new homes.

Council Tax

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, we all know that there are problems caused by outdated valuations and the regressive nature of council tax. However, a widescale reform of the system would be time-consuming and complex, and we are committed to keeping tax on working people as low as possible. The Government will carefully consider the impact on councils and taxpayers before taking any further decisions on council tax.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, the last time we discussed this, on 19 November, the noble Baroness also said in response:

“We all know that problems are caused by outdated valuations and the regressive nature of council tax”.—[Official Report, 19/11/24; col. 118.]


So why are the Government so reluctant to act?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

If there were to be a revaluation, there would be winners and losers. This is one of those issues where whatever we did would cause further problems in the system. It is a widely understood tax and there are high levels of collection. However, the Government are taking part in the fair funding review—we have issued a consultation on that—to make sure we level up the playing field for local authority funding, so that areas which need the money most get the most money.

Local Government: Funding

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Monday 27th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes a very important point about working on a consensus, which is why we have launched the major consultation on how we should take this forward. In addition, our English Devolution White Paper, which we published in December, sets out our plans to reset that balance between central and local government. That includes both funding and powers, and it is a new framework for English devolution that attempts to move power out of Westminster and back to those who know their areas best. That is the whole purpose of the devolution agreement. We want to see that done on the basis of it coming from the local areas upwards. We are committed to fixing those foundations, and we will do that with the people in our local areas and not to them.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, on that devolution framework that the noble Baroness just referred to, the Minister in the other place said:

“That is why we are moving power out of Westminster and putting it back into the hands of those who know their area best”.—[Official Report, Commons, 16/12/24; col. 36.]


But power involving money was not devolved, leaving local authorities, as the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said, dependent on a council tax which is regressive and 30 years out of date and business rates which are killing the hospitality and retail industries. Do we not need a much more fundamental review than the one the Minister just referred to?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The English Devolution White Paper sits at the heart of the reform we want, and that will involve both funding and money. I understand the pressure for urgent reform of council tax, but we have to be committed to keeping taxes on working people as low as possible. It is for local authorities to decide where they set their council tax. The Government will consider longer-term options to improve council tax billing and all those things, but council tax is a well-understood tax and it has very high collection rates. In terms of business rates, we published a discussion paper, Transforming Business Rates, which set out the priority areas for reform. We have had very good engagement on that and we will publish our update in due course.

National Policy Planning Framework: Housing

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Monday 6th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I agree with the noble Baroness that the terms “affordable housing” and “social housing” have sometimes been conflated, with unfortunate consequences. To make clear the priority that we attach to delivering homes for social rent, we are amending the definition of affordable housing. It will be carved out as a separate category, distinct from social housing for rent. I hope that that gives the noble Baroness a sign of our intention. We will expect local authorities to assess the need in their areas, including in all the categories that she mentioned, and to make provision to meet that need in their local plans.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

Has the Minister seen reports that more than 17,000 affordable homes have been made available by developers under Section 106, but no single housing association has been able to take them up? Against that background, would it not make sense for the developers to sell those homes to first-time buyers and discharge their Section 106 obligation by making a financial contribution to the local authority, which could then build some social houses?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

It is possible for builders to change the provision if they need to, but that has to be in exceptional circumstances, because the need for social housing is so acute. The Government have set up a new clearing service for those Section 106 homes via Homes England. That was launched on 12 December, and we hope that it will enable us to match up registered providers with the social homes available under Section 106.

Housing: Permitted Development Rights

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Wednesday 18th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government’s aim in the delivery of the 1.5 million homes is to deliver good quality, well-designed, sustainable homes and places that everyone can be proud of. I have already met both the TCPA and the National Housing Federation, which have been campaigning on this. I am very aware of some of the poor practice that has occurred, and we will continue to advocate for the principles of good design, as set out in the National Design Guide and the National Model Design Code. As I say, we keep permitted development under review.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, it must make sense to use redundant buildings to provide good-quality accommodation for those in need, but is there not a loophole in the current fire safety regulations? These apply when a commercial building is converted into flats but not when industrial buildings or storage units are. Should we not use the Renters’ Rights Bill to close this loophole?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, the Planning Gateway One fire safety requirements apply to applications for planning permission for relevant buildings. To apply some of the principles to permitted development, there was a prior approval on fire safety impacts in 2021 that applies to class MA: commercial, business and services to residential. It is not, however, as detailed as the requirements for a planning application. For example, it does not require the completion of a fire safety form. We need to continue to look at these issues and to make sure that permitted development is completely safe from fire.

Building Homes

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Tuesday 17th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his question. We have an Oral Question on exactly the same topic tomorrow, when I am sure I will be able to give a fuller answer.

The noble Lord is quite right. As I come from a new town, I recognise the benefit of not just designing the homes but planning the areas where they are to be situated. They should, of course, be sustainable, healthy and have all the infrastructure that everybody needs. The Government are committed to taking steps to ensure that we not only build more homes but that they are high quality, well designed and sustainable. That is why we have made changes to the NPPF to make clear the importance of achieving well-designed places, and how this can be achieved holistically through local design policies, design codes and guidance. We will be pushing this forward further in the new year.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, that there is much in the Statement to be welcomed. It is right that the Government should have a target of 1.5 million, although it is an ambitious one. If any Government are to hit a national target, they must have the levers through setting mandatory targets for local authorities. This was my Government’s policy until 2022. Of course, I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, that these targets must be right. I welcome the recognition that, without some erosion of the green belt, we are not going to get anywhere near the target.

Where I have some difficulty with the Statement is reading it in conjunction with the plans for devolution. Under the Statement which the noble Baroness has repeated, the basic unit is the local plan, and all the districts have to get ahead with theirs. Under the devolution White Paper, they must find partners—other districts—in order to reach the 500,000 target; then, presumably, there will have to be a new district plan for that. At the same time, the Government want to impose mayors everywhere. We read on page 48 that the mayors will be responsible for strategic planning and housing growth. Later on, it says that mayors will have

“an increasingly central role in housing delivery.”

Then, of course, the mayor can set up a development corporation and override the objections of any district. On top of this, the Government can set up a new town corporation. It is not absolutely clear to me how all the moving parts of the planning system fit together.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

There are clear links between the new National Planning Policy Framework and the English devolution programme. The English Devolution White Paper, which was published yesterday, is a consultation document, and we will be taking views on it as time goes on. The noble Lord, Lord Young, is right to say that there is a proposal in that White Paper for mayors to have strategic spatial planning powers. Across those sub-regional areas—we are talking about areas with a population of around 1.5 million—they will be looking at transport, infra- structure, probably housing numbers across the whole area, and other issues that are strategic in nature.

I do not believe that this undermines in any way the status of local plans. Where there is local government reorganisation, there will be some consolidation of plans to make this work at the level of the new councils. The strength of the local plan will be retained in determining where the allocations in the strategic spatial plan will be located. I do not think the intention of spatial planning is to undermine local plans. I remember the days of regional planning; we are not going back to that, because people felt it was too big a scale. It makes a lot of sense to do this at sub-regional level. When planning an economy, infrastructure and housing growth, you start at sub-regional level and then the local plans fit in with that.

Older People’s Housing Taskforce

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Monday 16th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I recognise how important the right housing arrangements are in supporting people to live independently and well. The Government will set out details of new investment to succeed the 2021 to 2026 affordable homes programme at the spending review. The National Planning Policy Framework outlines that local authorities should assess the housing needs of different groups, including older people, and reflect this in their local plans. We have strengthened the National Planning Policy Framework to encourage the delivery of mixed-tenure development. For most of those looking to downsize, the stamp duty due on the new property will be small. Stamp duty is an important source of revenue to provide essential services, and the Government have no further plans for relief for those looking to downsize.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, further to the Question from the noble Lord, Lord Best, and the Minister’s reply, the task force published its report two weeks ago, before the Government published their National Planning Policy Framework, and, despite what he says, that policy framework does not reflect the major recommendations of the task force. Will the Government publish a detailed response to all the recommendations of the task force, and will they implement some of the recommendations in the forthcoming planning Bill?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, we consulted on reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework and published our response on 12 December. We are determined to create a more diverse housing market that delivers homes to meet a range of needs. On the noble Lord’s particular point, we will respond to all 44 recommendations of the task force. However, my honourable friend in the other House, Matthew Pennycook, will look at this in the wider housing strategy.

Homes: Existing Communities

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2024 Grand Committee

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for initiating this short and very timely debate. I will refer in a moment to a speech that he made on 29 February on a similar theme, but he will not mind my saying that he is not one of the usual suspects who turns up to our debates on housing. However, his insight is invaluable, because he comes from a successful commercial background, providing consumers with what they need, which we have manifestly failed to do in housing, and he brings a clarity of purpose—and also a sense of impatience and frustration about the current system, with which I very much sympathise. Who could argue that where we are today is the right place on housing and planning? There was a very perceptive article by Paul Johnson in the Times on Monday.

Having read my noble friend’s speech on 29 February, I have some reservations about part of his approach. He proposed two simple principles to the world of housing, and what he said then bears remarkable similarity to what he has just said:

“I have time to suggest just two … It simply insists that all new development does nothing to materially devalue neighbouring homes and businesses. The second, the ‘carry your weight’ principle, requires all new development to leave infrastructure in the state in which it found it or better. Before 1947, such a free market system existed in broad terms; it delivered the architecture, streets, cities and towns that we love and cherish today”.—[Official Report, 29/2/24; col. GC 158.]


It also delivered some pretty terrible stuff that no planning system would permit.

I have difficulty with those principles, and I am one of the guilty party; I was Housing Minister for about nine years and Planning Minister for four. The trouble with the first principle is that it risks denying the country the new homes that it needs. After 41 years in another place—with those four years as Minister for Planning—I know that there are many people out there who will argue that any new development, however well designed, will materially devalue their homes or businesses. We have need of development, however. We need new pylons —who is going to welcome those?—we need new prison capacity to deal with overcrowding, and we need 1.5 million new homes to meet the Government’s target.

What we in fact need is a system that weighs the material devaluation to a few people against the wider benefit to society as a whole. That is what a planning system does and what a free market simply cannot do. A free market, for example, will not deliver the new towns that were delivered after the war and which we will need again. It would not have tolerated the compulsory purchase of land, nor would it have delivered the regeneration of Docklands by the 1979 Conservative Government.

Even if a market-led approach delivered the houses, what about everything else—the schools, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, or the medical centres and so on that need to go with it? What about minimising the impact of climate change by promoting development near, for example, existing transport interchanges? How would we develop social housing—now delivered through Section 106 agreements—without a planning system imposing conditions? The planning system captures the difference between the £15,000 per acre and the £1.5 million by obliging the developer to provide the infrastructure and the social housing. I am not sure how the free market that my noble friend referred to would do that.

I also have a problem with the second principle of leaving the infrastructure in the state it was found or better. My concern is that the “or better” would not be provided were it not for the planning system—either through Section 106 or infrastructure levies—which insists that the person building the houses also provides the infrastructure. If that is not done by the developer, by capturing the land value, the burden would simply fall on the taxpayer, which is not a good option.

Where I agree with my noble friend is that we need to have a system that ensures that there is greater certainty about where development will take place and to have a construction industry that delivers. I am sorry if I have sounded very negative about my noble friend but, having tried over the past 30 or 40 years to do what he wants to do, there are some real issues that I am not sure the free market, or the commercial approach that has inspired his career, would address.