Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Brandon Lewis and Roberta Blackman-Woods

Tuesday 3rd May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

My hon. Friend places in keen focus one of the problems of the housing deficit that the Government inherited in 2010. Under the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), not only did we see the lowest level of housebuilding since about 1923, but in 13 years the Labour party built fewer social homes through their councils than we have built in the past four or five years. There is a huge amount to do to drive up the amount of housing so that there are more opportunities for people to have homes across all tenures, whether shared ownership, private rental or with affordable rent. We must ensure that more people have the chance to get on and achieve the aspiration held by 86% of the public, which is to buy a home of their own.

The House will be glad to hear that I will not speak to every Government amendment—you might also be pleased about that, Mr Deputy Speaker. Many of those amendments are minor and technical, and much as we might all enjoy it if I spoke to them all, some colleagues would not thank me because we might still be here by Prorogation. Each amendment makes the Bill work better for those who implement these policies on the ground, and they have been tabled because the Government have listened to the debate and taken action as a result. We have strengthened people’s ability to own their own home and get Britain building again—improving on the 25% increase in building over the last year—and I hope that the House will agree to those changes made in the other place.

I also want to send a strong message that this Government will not slow the pace of housebuilding—we will increase it. We will not take away people’s dream of home ownership—we will inspire it, and we will deliver our manifesto commitments. When the hon. Member for City of Durham (Dr Blackman-Woods) responds to this debate, I hope that Labour Members will ask themselves why they stand against our mandate to boost home ownership and supply—something that the people of this country want and expect. While Labour blusters with political posturing after the abysmal housing mess that it left, we remain focused on building homes across our country and across all tenures. We will increase housing supply and home ownership. That is what we promised, and that is what we will deliver.

[Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)]

I thank their lordships for their amazing work on this Bill. Thirteen defeats and a string of concessions means that some of the sharpest edges have been knocked off a very bad Bill, but it remains an extraordinary and extreme piece of proposed legislation. Concern is being voiced by housing experts, charities, house builders, mortgage lenders, and Conservatives across a range of council leaders, MPs and peers. Doubts about the Bill matter, but even more important are the deeper doubts—on all fronts and with good reason—about whether the Conservative party is competent to fix our housing crisis.

Since 2010, home ownership has fallen, homelessness and rough sleeping have doubled, private rents have soared, housing benefit costs have ballooned, and during the last Parliament, fewer new homes were built than under any peacetime Government since the 1920s. This Bill does little to tackle the overall housing shortage or produce more housing across all tenures, including housing to rent as well as buy. With the exception of provisions on rogue landlords, it does nothing to improve the private rented sector on which so many people now rely.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brandon Lewis]

My hon. Friend make a very good point, as have other colleagues across the Chamber this evening. I am very sympathetic to the points they have raised, which is why we are looking through this review to see how the current system is working, bearing in mind that it came in only a year ago and that it will be reporting back.

There is a theme emerging. I am proposing that this House should disagree with amendments that would increase burdens on house builders, would be unworkable for those building new homes and, like those in the previous group of amendments, would effectively slow the pace at which they can deliver them. That is also why the Government disagree with Lords amendment 109, which seeks to prevent the Secretary of State from using a power in relation to small sites and also in rural areas.

I want to make it clear that we are happy to work with the other place and to address the issues it raises about rural areas through regulations. Regulations will make clear those rural areas where restrictions will not apply. Working with the other place will also allow us to consider how other rural areas can seek exclusion from any restrictions.

Finally, I have read the Hansard reports of the proceedings in the other place, and on many occasions I stood at the Bar to watch them myself. I have missed standing here over the past few weeks talking about the Bill. As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, we could talk much longer about the Bill, but I will not be tempted to do so this evening. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) tempts me to speak further. I hope that this House will accept my earlier argument. The motions that stand in the name of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to agree with the other place mean that homes will be delivered faster as a result, the planning system will run smoother and the way we manage and deliver housing will be faster and fairer.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

The first thing I want to say about the planning section of the Bill is that it is a pity that it has not had more resonance in the public realm, because it is bringing about far-reaching changes to the planning system that many local communities should be concerned about. Two issues that I will highlight are the extensive use of permission in principle on brownfield sites and the contracting out of planning services to private providers. Both risk drastically reducing the say that local communities have over what is built in their area and are a further nail in the coffin of the Government’s localist credentials.

Housing: Long-term Plan

Debate between Brandon Lewis and Roberta Blackman-Woods

Tuesday 9th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

The point I was making was that in the first year’s sales of right to buy homes in the reinvigorated scheme in London, properties have been replaced in the timeframe at a ratio of 2:1. That is a fact. The one for nine to which the right hon. Gentleman refers does not compare like-for-like figures—it is a totally false representation. On the wider scale, there is 1:1 as well. I would go further, as this is not about replacement. Once a home has been bought by someone who lives in it for five years, it does not disappear from the housing stock. The homes that are built are extra homes that increase the housing supply. Under the voluntary agreement, housing associations will deliver one extra home at least for every home that is sold. The Housing and Planning Bill, which the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale has consistently opposed, would ensure that the planning system plays a part in helping to drive up an increase in supply.

In the last Parliament, we reformed and streamlined the failing top-down planning system we inherited. Today, local people are in control and developing their own plans for house building, while the planning system is faster and more efficient.

[Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)]

Rubbish!

[Brandon Lewis]

I am sorry the hon. Lady thinks giving that power to local people is rubbish. I think that local people are the right people to make these decisions.

Since 2010, the number of planning permissions for new homes has risen by 50% and the number of local plans has more than doubled. I gently say to the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale that my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mims Davies) was absolutely right and he was wrong: the local authority in Eastleigh does not have a local plan. It should do the right thing and get one in place. That is what she is fighting for on behalf of her residents.

I know that Members want building on brownfield land to be the first choice. Under this Government, brownfield land will be prioritised and new homes will be built near existing residences so that the green belt and local countryside is protected. A new statutory register of brownfield land will provide up-to-date and publicly available information about land suitable for housing. Planning permission in principle will drive that further. Our estate regeneration programme will transform rundown bad estates across the country, and 40 brownfield housing zones, including 20 in London, are also being created.

We want planning permissions in place for 90% of these sites by 2020 so that we can regenerate eyesores and derelict land to create modern homes for the next generation. We will change the parliamentary process to allow for urban development corporations, and smaller firms in particular will benefit from quicker and simpler ways to establish where and what they can build. We are supporting smaller house builders by directly commissioning the construction of new homes on publicly owned land. Our pilot schemes will see work start on up to 13,000 homes on four sites this year, with 40% of them being starter homes. Nothing on that scale has been done for 30 years. Our new approach will support smaller house builders and new entrants that are ready to build but lack the resources and access to land. We will help them. Currently, the top eight house builders provide 50% of all new homes, and we are determined to change this ratio, as we build more homes this Parliament.

Great progress has been made since the great housing crash under Labour. We took the tough decisions, in coalition and then in a Conservative Government, to tackle the deficit, help homebuyers and get Britain building again. We reformed the planning system and ensured that local people were in control of building the homes they needed, and we ensured that new homes were built across all tenures. In 2010, the housing market was in danger of collapsing altogether, and house building had almost stopped. At the same time, public opposition to new housing was enormous, because people were sick and tired of being bossed from Whitehall. Dramatic improvements have been made in all these areas.

Problems that fester for years, however, take a long time and great effort and commitment to solve. There is still a profound need to build more homes in our country across all tenures to support the aspirations of people who want to buy their own home. Everyone in the Chamber and in public life has a role to play in making the case to local communities for seeing these homes built. This will be a defining challenge of our generation. That is why the Government will be unwavering in their commitment to deliver a better housing market—one that secures our economic recovery, boosts productivity and rebalances our economy. That is a prize worth fighting for. Its economic and social legacy could last far beyond any of our political lives.

These plans are about working people—the people we all serve. It is about their hopes, their dreams, their plans for their and their families’ futures, and their confidence that their hard work will be rewarded. That must be our motivation. We are one nation—north and south, renters and buyers, young and old. Whoever and wherever they are, anyone can walk through the door of opportunity and into a home of their own.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Brandon Lewis and Roberta Blackman-Woods

Monday 8th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

My hon. Friend always fights hard for his constituents. Preventing youth homelessness is a priority for this Government. We are investing £15 million in the fair chance fund, an innovative payment-by-results scheme. That is helping some 2,000 vulnerable young homeless people to get into accommodation, education, training and employment. We will work closely with providers to find a long-term solution to the funding of supported accommodation.

[Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)]

I, too, associate myself and those on the Labour Benches with your comments, Mr Speaker. Harry Harpham will be sorely missed by the Labour party, his constituents, and, of course, his family and friends. Our thoughts are with them at this time.

Research from Changing Lives, a Newcastle-based specialist housing agency, estimates that it and other supported housing providers across the country will lose a huge sum of money from the Chancellor’s crude cuts to housing benefit. The discretionary fund on which the Government say they must rely is totally inadequate. What will the Minister do to ensure that that vital form of housing for many thousands of people with disabilities and other specialist needs remains and is properly funded in future?

[Brandon Lewis]

I say to the hon. Lady, as I have said before, that we will make sure that the most vulnerable in our society are protected. We are also boosting supply with £400 million-worth of funding announced in the spending review to deliver specialist affordable homes for the vulnerable, the elderly and those with disabilities. Of course, there is also our £5.3 billion investment in the better care fund, through which we are looking to integrate health and social care.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Brandon Lewis and Roberta Blackman-Woods

Tuesday 12th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Brandon Lewis)]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way so early. I wanted gently to challenge her comments about today’s debate bearing in mind that the programme motion was agreed with the Opposition and that we agreed to the changes they asked for.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I remind the Minister that we voted against the programme motion.

Amendment 53 safeguards the replacement of like-for-like housing; homes cannot be sold if their sale value is less than the cost of replacing the original property. Amendment 55 seeks to exempt certain types of specialist housing from “high value” determination. Owing to the extremely limited time available today, I will not speak in detail on those amendments. I will focus instead on amendments 131 to 141, which leave out all the clauses in chapter 2 of part 4, effectively removing the chapter from the Bill.

Labour Members are not against local authorities making sensible decisions about their assets, but that is not what the clauses in this chapter of the Bill would enable. They will force local authorities to sell off much-needed council housing, even when they have huge waiting lists. Glyn Robbins, estate manager of Quaker Court, stated that many council homes in London in places such as Quaker Court are likely to be deemed high value, and that is where the Government’s legislation will have the most severe impact.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brandon Lewis]

In the interests of speed, I suggest that the hon. Gentleman look at the report of what I have just said, but yes, we will ensure that secure tenancies continue when tenants are asked to move, and councils will be able to consider applying them to voluntary moves as well.

I do not believe that the hon. Lady’s proposal represents a good use of social housing, and I trust that the House will agree. The Government amendments will result in a Bill that will bring fairness and efficiency to the housing market, and will further the dreams of aspirational home owners. I commend them to the House.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

As I said, we would have liked to remove the chapters on the forced sale of council housing and the mandatory rent rises, but we cannot do so because of time. I therefore wish to withdraw amendment 131, to which we shall no doubt return in the Lords. I will, however, press amendment 142, which seeks to protect security of tenure for council tenants, and in due course my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) will press amendment 89.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 72

Reduction of payment by agreement

Amendment made: 112, page 31, line 19, at end insert—

‘(4) Where the agreement is with a local housing authority in Greater London, it must require the authority to ensure that at least two new affordable homes are provided for each old dwelling.

(5) But if the Greater London Authority has agreed to ensure that a number of the new affordable homes are provided, that number is to be deducted from the number for which the local housing authority must be made responsible under subsection (4).

(6) The Secretary of State may by regulations create other exceptions to subsection (4) in relation to one or more local housing authorities.

(7) In this section—

“new affordable home” means a new dwelling in England that—

(a) is to be made available for people whose needs are not adequately served by the commercial housing market, or

(b) is a starter home as defined by section2;

“new dwelling” means a building or part of a building that—

(a) has been constructed for use as a single dwelling and has not previously been occupied, or

(b) has been adapted for use as a single dwelling and has not been occupied since its adaptation;

“old dwelling” means a single dwelling taken into account under section67(2) for the purposes of the determination.

(8) If a determination under this Chapter relates to more than one financial year—

(a) an agreement under this section may be made in relation to the determination so far as it relates to a particular financial year, and

(b) if such an agreement is made with a local housing authority in Greater London, the reference in subsection (7) to the determination is to the determination so far as it relates to the financial year to which the agreement relates.

(9) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend this section so as to change the meaning of “new affordable home”.’ —(Brandon Lewis.)

Where a local housing authority is required to make a payment to the Secretary of State in respect of its vacant high value housing, Clause 72 allows an agreement to be made to reduce the amount. This amendment is about the terms and conditions that must be included in an agreement.

Clause 153

Regulations: general

Amendment made: 130, page 76, line 21, at end insert—

“( ) regulations under section72(9);”—(Brandon Lewis.)

This amendment is consequential on amendment 112 and ensures that regulations amending the definition of affordable home are subject to the affirmative procedure.

Clause 155

Commencement

Amendments made: 9, page 77, line 11, at end insert—

“( ) Chapter 2 of Part 4;”

This amendment provides for Chapter 2 of Part 4 (vacant high value social housing) to come into force on Royal Assent.

Amendment 11, page 77, line 17, leave out paragraph (a). — (Brandon Lewis.)

This is consequential on amendment 9.



New Clause 59

Reverting to original rent levels

‘(1) Rent regulations may include provision for the purpose of ensuring that where a requirement imposed under section 79(1) ceases to apply, the rent is changed to what it would have been if the requirement had never applied.

(2) Rent regulations may include provision for the purpose of ensuring that where—

(a) a local housing authority is required by section81(2) to charge the maximum rent because of a tenant’s failure to provide information or evidence, and

(b) the tenant subsequently provides the necessary information or evidence,

the rent is changed to what it would have been if section81 (2) had never applied.” —(Brandon Lewis.)

This relates to Chapter 4 of Part 4. It is primarily intended to ensure that where a person ceases to be a high income tenant, his or her rent returns to normal levels for social tenants. It also deals with circumstances where a person has failed to provide information or evidence but subsequently does so.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 60

Private providers: policies for high income social tenants

‘(1) A private registered provider of social housing that has a policy about levels of rent for high income social tenants in England must publish that policy.

(2) The policy must include provision for requesting reviews of, or appealing, decisions under the policy.”—(Brandon Lewis.)

See Member’s explanatory statement for amendment 113. Where a private registered provider decides to adopt a policy of charging higher levels of rent to high income social tenants this new clause requires the policy to be published and to contain provision about the procedure and disputes.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 61

Hmrc information for private registered providers

‘(1) HMRC may disclose information for the purpose of enabling a private registered provider of social housing to apply any relevant policy about levels of rent for high income social tenants in England.

(2) The information may only be disclosed to—

(a) the private registered provider of social housing,

(b) the Secretary of State for the purposes of passing the information to registered providers,

(c) a public body that has been given the function of passing information between HMRC and registered providers by regulations under subsection (3), or

(d) a body with which the Secretary of State has made arrangements for the passing of information between HMRC and registered providers.

(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations—

(a) give a public body the function mentioned in subsection (2)(c), and

(b) make provision about the carrying out of that function.

(4) The Secretary of State must obtain HMRC’s consent before making—

(a) arrangements under subsection (2)(d), or

(b) regulations under subsection (3).

(5) Information disclosed under this section to the Secretary of State or to a body mentioned in subsection (2)(c) or (d) may be passed on to a registered provider for which it is intended.

(6) Information disclosed under this section may not otherwise be further disclosed without authorisation from HMRC.

(7) Where a person contravenes subsection (6) by disclosing any revenue and customs information relating to a person whose identity—

(a) is specified in the disclosure, or

(b) can be deduced from it,

section 19 of the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005 (wrongful disclosure) applies in relation to that disclosure as it applies in relation to a disclosure of such information in contravention of section 20(9) of that Act.

(8) In this section—

“HMRC” means the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs;

“relevant”, in relation to a private registered provider’s policy about levels of rent for high income social tenants in England, means a policy that—

(a) has been published as required by section (Private providers: policies for high income social tenants), and

(b) complies with any requirements imposed under subsection (2) of that section;

“revenue and customs information relating to a person” has the meaning given by section 19(2) of the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005;

“tenant” includes prospective tenant.” — (Brandon Lewis.)

See Member’s explanatory statement for amendment 113.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 79

Mandatory rents for high income social tenants

Amendments made: 113, page 33, line 14, leave out “a registered provider of social housing” and insert “an English local housing authority”

This is the first of a number of amendments that restrict Chapter 4 of Part 4 of the Bill (high income social tenants: mandatory rents) to local authorities. Private registered providers will not be required to charge high income social tenants specific rents but NC60 and NC61 are intended to facilitate them doing so on a voluntary basis.

Amendment 114, page 33, line 23, leave out “registered provider of social housing” and insert “local housing authority”.—(Brandon Lewis.)

See Member’s explanatory statement for amendment 113.

Clause 80

Meaning of “high income” etc

Amendment made: 115, page 34, line 3, leave out “registered provider of social housing” and insert “local housing authority” .—(Brandon Lewis.)

See Member’s explanatory statement for amendment 113.

Clause 81

Information about income

Amendments made: 116, page 34, line 7, leave out “registered provider of social housing” and insert “local housing authority” .

See Member’s explanatory statement for amendment 113.

Amendment 117, page 34, line 9, leave out “registered provider” and insert “local housing authority”

See Member’s explanatory statement for amendment 113.

Amendment 118, page 34, line 11, leave out “registered provider of social housing” and insert “English local housing authority”

See Member’s explanatory statement for amendment 113.

Amendment 119, page 34, line 12, leave out “rent at the market rate” and insert “the maximum rent”

Clause 81(2) enables regulations requiring rent to be charged at the market rate to a tenant who has failed to comply with a requirement to provide information about income etc. This amendment and amendment 120 change this so that the tenant must be charged the maximum rate that they would have to pay as a high income tenant (which might still be less than the full market rate).

Amendment 120, page 34, line 18, at end insert—

‘( ) In subsection (2) “the maximum rent” means the rent that a local housing authority is required to charge a high income tenant of the premises under section 79 (or, if regulations under section 79(3)(a) provide for different rents for people with different incomes, the rent that a person in the highest income bracket would be required to pay).”.—(Brandon Lewis.)

See Member’s explanatory statement for amendment 119.

Clause 82

HMRC information

Amendments made: 121, page 34, line 20, leave out “registered provider of social housing” and insert “local housing authority”.

See Member’s explanatory statement for amendment 113.

Amendment 122, page 34, line 24, leave out “registered provider of social housing” and insert “local housing authority”

See Member’s explanatory statement for amendment 113.

Amendment 123, page 34, line 26, leave out “registered providers” and insert “local housing authorities”

See Member’s explanatory statement for amendment 113.

Amendment 124, page 34, line 28, leave out “registered providers” and insert “local housing authorities”

See Member’s explanatory statement for amendment 113.

Amendment 125, page 34, line 31, leave out “registered providers” and insert “local housing authorities”

See Member’s explanatory statement for amendment 113.

Amendment 126, page 34, line 39, leave out “registered provider” and insert “local housing authority”.—(Brandon Lewis.)

See Member’s explanatory statement for amendment 113.

Clause 83

Power to increase rents and procedure for changing rents

Amendments made: 127, page 35, line 16, leave out “registered provider of social housing” and insert “local housing authority”

See Member’s explanatory statement for amendment 113.

Amendment 128, page 35, line 17, leave out “increase” and insert “change”.—(Brandon Lewis.)

This amendment is consequential on NC59.

Clause 86

Enforcement by Regulator of Social Housing

Amendment made: 129, page 36, line 4, leave out clause 86.—(Brandon Lewis.)

The enforcement powers in Chapter 4 of Part 4 were primarily aimed at private registered providers. In light of amendment 113 they are no longer needed.

Two hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on consideration, the proceedings were interrupted (Programme order, 5 January).

The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83E).



Clause 89

Secure tenancies etc: phasing out of tenancies for life

Amendment proposed: 142, line 20, leave out clause 89. . —(Dr Blackman-Woods.)

This amendment, together with amendment 143, would enable councils to be free to manage flexibly tenancies in a way that drives best value from stock whilst supporting strong local communities.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Brandon Lewis and Roberta Blackman-Woods

Monday 14th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

Actually, there was a 70% increase in social housing waiting lists under the last Labour Administration, and thanks to the flexibilities we have created, it has fallen. We also saw more social council housing built in the last Parliament than in the entire 13 years of Labour Government before that, and there is still over £2 billion of headroom in the housing revenue account for local authorities to go further and build more. I encourage them to do so.

[Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)]

The building of genuinely affordable homes for social rent in this country has plummeted, and no matter how much the Minister tries to dress up the Government’s record, his Department’s figures are clear and speak for themselves. In 2010, more than 38,000 homes were built for social rent, but by 2014-15, that figure was a truly dismal 9,500. The Housing and Planning Bill makes it virtually impossible to build homes for social rent. There was also the disgraceful sneaking out last week of proposals to end secure tenancies for local authority tenants. What exactly do this Government have against people who rely on social housing to make ends meet, and when is the Minister going to address the huge shortfall in social housing units?

[Brandon Lewis]

As I said a few moments ago, in the last five years of Conservative government more council homes were built than in the entire 13 years of Labour government, during which the number of affordable homes dropped by 420,000. There is still more than £2 billion of borrowing headroom enabling local authorities to build more. We have made it clear that we will help all those who aspire to own their own homes by extending the right to buy and delivering starter homes throughout the country.

Housing and Planning Bill (Seventeenth sitting)

Debate between Brandon Lewis and Roberta Blackman-Woods

Thursday 10th December 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Thomas]

I am grateful to the Minister for his reply and his willingness to look at the issue of HCA guidance. A number of contractors and social landlords told the inquiry to which I referred that the framework had worked well, and I gently suggest that that might be another reason for looking at the matter again.

I welcome the Minister’s personal commitment to the area in question. As a last point, I would urge him to consider the point that he ended on—the quality of construction apprenticeships. I worry that, in the past, some apprenticeships on offer have not been of high quality, which might have been a factor in putting some people off going into the construction industry. However, given the Minister’s helpful remarks, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 12

Tenants’ rights to new management in property sold under LSVT

“(1) This section applies to housing which—

(a) was previously owned by a local authority;

(b) was part of a large scale voluntary transfer falling within the definition of section 32(4AB) of the Housing Act 1985; and

(c) the disposal of which was subject to the consent of the Secretary of State under section 32 of the 1985 Act.

(2) Where the transfer took place more than five years before this section comes into operation the current owner of the transferred housing shall consult the current tenants on their satisfaction with the management of that property.

(3) Where the transfer took place less than five years after this section comes into operation the current owner of the transferred housing shall not more than every five years consult the current tenants on their satisfaction with the management of that property.

(4) If more than 50% of tenants responding to the consultation under subsections (2) or (3) are dissatisfied with the management of the property, the owner of the housing must carry out a competitive tender for the management of the property and report the outcome to the tenants.”—(Dr Blackman-Woods.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause is intended to ensure that tenants will be consulted about their satisfaction with management arrangements for their properties and tenancies where there has been a large-scale voluntary transfer. If, after five years, more than 50% of tenants are not happy with the arrangements, it provides for a competitive tendering exercise. This is largely a probing amendment to check whether the Government think it important to gauge tenant satisfaction with the LSVT arrangements, and to provide a mechanism to change them if tenants are not happy.

[Brandon Lewis]

Local authority stock transfer can take place only if the majority of the tenants vote in a ballot, as required by statute. Indeed, the Secretary of State’s consent to the transfer can be given only after he is satisfied of two things: first, that the local authority’s consultation exercise has been adequate; and, secondly, that the majority of tenants voting are in favour of transfer. Furthermore, the Secretary of State will ensure that the acquiring landlord is registered with the regulator, so that he can be satisfied that the organisation is viable and will look after the stock in the long term, to the benefit of the tenants.

Although there are no powers currently available to tenants to sack or fire their housing association, the rights of housing association tenants, including ex-council tenants, are protected through a range of mechanisms. The Localism Act 2011 placed the power to scrutinise landlords’ performance and hold them to account back into the hands of tenants and their elected representatives. That can include referring complaints to the housing ombudsman if issues have not been resolved locally. Many tenant panels already play a key role in scrutinising landlords’ performance, challenging poor service and holding landlords of all types to account for delivery and value for money. The regulator’s tenant involvement and empowering standard requires landlords to offer tenants a wide range of opportunities to play that bigger role locally, including by forming tenant panels.

The regulator does not have powers to mediate or resolve individual cases, but it can and will investigate where there is evidence of serious detriment. The regulator also has the power to institute a statutory inquiry if necessary. Where a merger is proposed, housing associations are already required to consult with all stakeholders. I appreciate, as the hon. Member for City of Durham said, that this is a probing amendment. Hopefully she will accept and acknowledge that it is not necessary, as current tenants already have a number of sufficient and wide-ranging instruments enabling them to scrutinise their landlords and hold them to account, and rightly so, in addition to the HCA’s regulatory standards.

Furthermore, the proposed amendment will affect only some tenants in England: namely, ex-council tenants transferred to new housing association landlords. It does not make sense for that whole group to be treated differently from other housing association tenants. I appreciate that this is a probing amendment, and I hope she will feel able to withdraw it.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I have heard what the Minister has said. It is a particular concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), who was keen to have something on the record about the need for some trigger mechanism in place for tenants unhappy with LSVT arrangements. I have heard what the Minister has said. Perhaps we will come back at a later stage to reconsider the issue. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 13

Conversion of leasehold to commonhold for interdependent properties

“(1) On 1 January 2020 long leases of residential property in interdependent properties shall cease to be land tenure capable of conveyance.

(2) On 1 January 2020 long leases as set out in subsection (1) shall become commonholds to which Part 1 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 (‘the 2002 Act’) shall apply, subject to the modifications set out in this section.

(3) Leaseholders, freeholders and those with an interest in an interdependent property are required to facilitate the transfer to commonhold, in particular they shall:

(a) by 1 January 2018 draw-up an agreed plan for the transfer;

(b) by 1 October 2018 value any interests to be extinguished by the transfer where the interest is held by a person who after transfer will not be a unit-holder; and

(c) by 1 January 2019 draw up a commonhold community statement for the purposes of—

(i) defining the extent of each commonhold unit;

(ii) defining the extent of the common parts and their respective uses;

(iii) defining the percentage contributions that each unit will contribute to the running costs of the building;

(iv) defining the voting rights of the members of the commonhold association; and

(v) specifying the rights and duties of the commonhold association, the unit-holders and their tenants.

(4) In any case where the parties at subsection (3) cannot or refuse to agree arrangements to facilitate the transfer any of the parties can make an application to the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) for a determination of the matter.

(5) Section 3 [Consent] of the 2002 Act shall cease to have effect on 1 January 2017.

(6) In subsection (1) ‘long lease’ means—

(a) a lease granted for a term certain exceeding 21 years, whether or not it is (or may become) terminable before the end of that term by notice given by the tenant or by re-entry or forfeiture; or

(b) a lease for a term fixed by law under a grant with a covenant or obligation for perpetual renewal, other than a lease by sub-demise from one which is not a long lease.”—(Dr Blackman-Woods.)

This New Clause would end the tenure of residential leasehold by 1 January 2020 by converting residential leases into commonhold.

Brought up, and read the First time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I was going to say to the hon. Member for Peterborough that I would be ruled out of order if I went too far down the fiscal route. The new clause primarily seeks to probe the Minister on what more can be done to ensure that first-time buyers are not priced out of the housing market and to ensure that their needs are considered in order to encourage them into the housing market.

Research by Molior London Ltd for the British Property Federation shows that, in 2013, 61% of new homes in London went to investors and 49% of all new homes in central London were bought by overseas buyers. Londoners are competing with wealthy buyers who are being actively targeted across the world. Housing stock is being sold so many years in advance of being built that cash buyers are favoured over those buying with a mortgage, and a number of us have seen examples in the press of that happening throughout the capital. Councils are powerless to prevent it from happening, even though the phenomenon is widespread and growing. For example, when someone clicks on the “enquire” tab of the website for the new 624-apartment Wardian development on the Isle of Dogs, they are asked to choose their location from London, Kuala Lumpur, Singapore, Hong Kong, Qatar, Abu Dhabi and Dubai. The scheme is not due for completion until 2019.

In 2014, the Mayor of London announced a mayoral concordat that would commit signatories to marketing new homes to Londoners first or first equal, yet that has failed to offer Londoners any meaningful first choice. Even if homes are technically available to Londoners on a first equal basis, the homes are being marketed across the world many years ahead of being completed. By ensuring that the period of exclusive marketing to local first-time buyers starts no earlier than six months before completion, the new clause would ensure that a proportion of new homes for first-time buyers are held back to be sold as they near completion, which would help people who are trying to buy with a mortgage.

As the Minister will know, the new clause seeks to address the horrible reality, faced by many people in London and other cities, of being priced out of the housing market because of overseas buyers coming in and snapping up the properties. If the Minister does not think that the new clause provides the way forward, it will be interesting to hear what he thinks will tackle the problem.

[Brandon Lewis]

We clearly need a radical shift in how housing markets support young first-time buyers, otherwise we will condemn a whole generation to further uncertainty and insecurity. On the hon. Lady’s point about buy to let and overseas investment, which my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough touched on, there are two things we need to bear in mind.

First, we need to be cautious about always falling into the trap of attacking overseas investment, because we have to remember that, during the economic crash of 2008, a great deal of building in this country, in London in particular, would not have happened had it not been for overseas money. Projects such as Battersea would not be going ahead where no English money was bidding to come forward. There is a part for overseas investment to play.

Secondly, it is also right to do what we can to deliver the homes that we need for young people in this country. That is why we saw the changes in the Budget this year to the tax relief for buy to lets, as well as the changes announced in the autumn statement only a few weeks ago, which made a substantial statement about where the Government are going and about our determination to deliver for people who want to buy their own home. I am therefore pleased that the Government have already made tremendous strides making mortgage lending available again to first-time buyers through the Help to Buy scheme. The number of first-time buyers has now increased by 68% since 2010.

I also recognise, however, the point made very well by the hon. Member for City of Durham: more needs to be done. We have to be clear and honest with ourselves that young people are struggling to buy their first home as house prices have continued to increase. Over the past 20 years, the proportion of under-40s who own their own home has been on a downward trend, so I fully understand and endorse the underlying policy objective of the new clause.

I believe, however, that promoting starter homes, as part 1 of the Bill does, is a much better way of achieving that objective. Not only will developers be required to build a proportion of starter homes on all suitable, reasonably sized sites in future, but those starter homes will be at least 20% cheaper than the going market price. That will give more prospective first-time buyers the opportunity to buy an affordable home of their own, especially if linked with Help to Buy and the 5% deposit, which the new clause would not necessarily achieve.

That is why we want 200,000 new starter homes built over the Parliament, with a minimum of a 20% discount. The Bill sets the framework for delivering our commitment. In November we debated in Committee the starter homes clauses extensively and the new clause would not add further value given the reforms we are putting in place. With that assurance, I hope the hon. Lady will withdraw the new clause.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I want to make it clear that, in moving the motion, we were not in any way suggesting that we were against a degree of overseas investment. The new clause is clear that the provisions would relate to a proportion of the dwellings that are marketed. It was simply intended to allow local people to have a way in to some of the new developments and to ensure that the new homes were not totally unavailable to them because they had all been bought up by overseas investors.

I have heard the Minister’s comments, however, and I think the Government are seeking to find a way of addressing the issue. We will mull over his comments and decide whether to investigate things at a later stage. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 22

Security of tenure

“After section 19A of the Housing Act 1988 insert—

‘(1) Any assured shorthold tenancy (other than one where the landlord is a private registered provider of social housing) granted on or after April 1, 2018 must be for a fixed term of at least thirty six months. It is an implied term of such a tenancy that the tenant may terminate the tenancy by giving two months’ written notice to the landlord.’

(2) In section 21 Housing Act 1988 insert—

‘(4ZA) In the case of a dwelling-house in England no notice under subsection (4) may be given for thirty six months after the beginning of the tenancy.’”—(Teresa Pearce.)

This amendment would prevent private sector landlords from using the ‘notice only’ grounds for possession for the first three years of a tenancy, without affecting the rights of tenants to give notice and leave the tenancy early.

Brought up, and read the First time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brandon Lewis]

Thank you, Mr Gray. I was already looking forward to an early Christmas finish.

Before discussing the new clauses’ merit, I should highlight to hon. Members who may not have noticed that section 303 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 already provides for the Secretary of State to allow, by regulations, local planning authorities to set their own level of fees up to cost recovery. We are therefore already technically in possession of the powers to enable local fee setting.

Authorities have a crucial role to play in providing services, none more so than enabling development to encourage home ownership, building homes people can afford to buy, and supporting economic growth and job creation. An effective and efficient planning system is essential to support that. Authorities have done a lot of work to find savings and efficiencies over the past few years, but fees for making planning applications have been set nationally and make an important contribution to meeting the costs of development management services. As has been outlined, they were last revised in 2012, and that revision was substantial.

I hear the call from professional bodies and developers that action is needed to ensure that local planning departments are resourced properly. My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon pointed out that we already have planning performance agreements that developers will take forward in order to have a guaranteed level of service. However, the level of planning application fees is only one side of the resourcing equation. Local government must drive down its costs, too. I am clear that any changes in fees should go hand in hand with the provision of an effective service. Giving local government a completely blank cheque, as the new clauses would do, could bring about unintended risks, as touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough.

Many more local authorities can do much more to transform their planning departments. I actually thank the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood for tabling her new clause as it gives me the chance, as I had on the Floor of the House just a few weeks ago, to reconfirm that, although some authorities have introduced new ways of delivering planning services through outsourcing and shared service arrangements, showing that costs can be saved and services can be improved, more should be following that lead. The research shows that there is a saving of 5% to 20% for competitively tendered or completely shared services. More local authorities need to do that, not just because it brings efficiencies but because it brings better resource, particularly for small districts that will be challenged to find the best players. Coming together gives them a better career opportunity, and there is also an opportunity for planners. Not enough local authorities have moved down that road.

I do not disagree with the hon. Members who spoke in favour of the proper resourcing of planning services, but local government and councils need to understand that their planning department is also their economic regeneration department, and they should focus clearly on it. Going further must go hand in hand with local authorities driving forward those service improvements and cost reductions.

We heard from my hon. Friends in Committee last week interesting ideas about fast-track planning applications and having a more competitive planning process. I made a commitment at the time, and I do so again today, to consider them before the end of this Bill process. That, rather than a focus on raising fees alone, is the type of innovative thinking that needs to be brought to the resourcing debate.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I hear what the Minister is saying about driving efficiency. Nevertheless, we have to ask what the Government can possibly mean by devolution if they do not even trust planning authorities to set their own fee levels.

[Brandon Lewis]

Finally, I will respond to the many references that hon. Members have made throughout the Committee proceedings, in one form or another, to resourcing—in fact, the hon. Lady just referred to it. The spending review provides a reasonable offer to local government and an increase in resources over this Parliament in cash terms. By the end of this Parliament, local government will be able to retain 100% of local taxes to spend on local services. We have to be honest and clear about this: local authorities have been able to increase their reserves over the past few years from about £13 billion to £22 billion. Although they should retain sensible reserves, they should also look at how to prioritise the funding they have, and they must see planning as a core and important department. As I said at the start of my speech, we already have the powers to allow local planning authorities to set fees locally. I have undertaken to look at some of the suggestions that my hon. Friends made last week. With that, I ask the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood to withdraw the new clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause was tabled to put on the record—or at least to try again to elicit from the Minister—exactly how wide the permission in principle outlined in clause 102 of the Bill will be applied. Will it be applied to brownfield sites and to sites that have been approved in the adopted local plan for the provision of housing? What we are trying to elicit through this new clause is some clarity from the Minister about what brownfield sites will be used for in terms of getting permission in principle.

[Brandon Lewis]

I am very happy to put on the record today that the Government obviously have no intention of allowing, for example, planning in principle to be used for some of the things that I know some people may be concerned about, such as fracking or waste development. However, we want to ensure that the local authorities are able to grant permission in principle for mixed-use developments that promote balanced and sustainable places, as I outlined last week.

The hon. Lady did not quite use the phrase “probing amendment”, but she wanted to have another go at making a point, which I appreciate. I am pleased she made that point, because I was somewhat surprised that she had tabled this new clause, bearing in mind that, in effect, we have already debated these issues quite heavily in two previous Committee sittings.

Both parts of this new clause would restrict the granting of permission in principle. As I outlined when we had those lengthy debates in those two Committee sittings, we want to ensure that there is a flexible system that delivers for people. That is where we are, and that is why I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw her new clause. If she does not do so, we will oppose it.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

As I suggested earlier to the Minister, this new clause is very much about getting further clarity from him about the extent of land, and the purpose, that could be behind permission in principle. It appears that it goes beyond housing and the Minister has helpfully clarified that this afternoon. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 34

Extension of the Housing Ombudsman to cover the Private Rented Sector

“(1) The Secretary of State shall by regulations introduce a scheme to extend the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, as set out in section 51 and Schedule 2 of the Housing Act 1996, to cover disputes between tenants and private landlords in the Greater London Authority.

(2) The scheme under subsection (1) shall—

(a) last at least one year and no longer than two years; and

(b) come into effect within 6 months of this Act receiving Royal Assent.

(3) The Secretary of State shall lay before each House of Parliament a report of the scheme under subsection (1) alongside any statement he thinks appropriate, within 3 months of the closing date of the scheme.

(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations extend the powers of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme as set out in section 51 and Schedule 2 of the Housing Act 1996, to cover disputes between tenants and private landlords nationwide.”—(Teresa Pearce.)

This new clause would give the Secretary of State the power to introduce a pilot scheme which would see the Housing Ombudsman extend its cover in London to private sector housing and disputes between tenants and private landlords, to require that the Secretary of State reports on the pilot scheme, and to give the Secretary of State power through regulations to extend the Housing Ombudsman to cover private sector housing and disputes between tenants and private landlords nationwide.

[Teresa Pearce]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause would give the Secretary of State power to introduce a pilot scheme that would see the housing ombudsman extend its cover in London to the private sector. That would require a report from the Secretary of State following the pilot, and would give the Secretary of State the ability to extend the powers of the housing ombudsman to the private sector nationwide if that pilot is successful.

In London, the private rented sector is growing and is a significant proportion of the housing market. Extending the ombudsman scheme to cover the private rented sector would be a big change. That is why this new clause proposes a pilot to establish whether such an extension would be worth while.

Most landlords are effective and efficient in letting their property, but disputes between landlords and tenants can and do occur. They could be about a delay in responding to a situation in a flat. Perhaps there could be problems with electrics, gas or heating, or there could be a concern that the property is dangerous. A tenant could be concerned that part of the tenancy agreement or lease has not been upheld. The housing ombudsman is a fantastic independent service that helps to resolve many such complaints and concerns.

The ombudsman considers complaints about how a landlord has responded to reports of a problem, and considers what is fair in all circumstances. The ombudsman does not look at the original problem. For example, it does not decide whether or not a property is damp. What they look at is whether or not the landlord has done what he needs to do in line with the tenancy agreement and the ombudsman’s policies. It helps to defuse disputes by having an independent person look at them.

All local authorities and housing associations must be a member of the ombudsman scheme. At present, private sector landlords can join on a voluntary basis, but not nearly enough of them do so, leaving many tenants in a position where they have nowhere left to turn when things go wrong.

In total, 87% of cases referred to the housing ombudsman were resolved by landlords and tenants with the support of the ombudsman. Many of those landlords and tenants have gone on to build and keep good relations, and they continue to rent from and let to each other.

The measures in the Bill will bring about a decline in social housing, whether it is managed by the local authority or a housing association. As a result, the private rented sector, particularly in London, will increase its share of the housing market. Surely, therefore, it is right to ensure that all tenants across the sector are afforded the same protections and dispute resolution service.

That is why I have tabled new clause 34, which would extend the housing ombudsman scheme as a pilot in London. I hope the Minister will look favourably on it and let me know whether he sees any merit in this scheme. If he does, I hope he will accept the new clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brandon Lewis]

On a point of order, Mr Gray. If you will indulge me for a few moments, I want to thank Members of all parties for a constructive debate over the past few weeks. This has been a good opportunity, as we head into Christmas, to get to know each other that little bit better, which in almost all cases has been a good thing. Some of us may have moved our views from time to time in order to make the passage of the Bill work. I genuinely appreciate that hon. Members have made some very powerful speeches, and we have seen strong contributions from both sides of the Committee by Members working to ensure that we end up with a Bill of which we can all hopefully be very proud and that delivers more housing across this country. I thank all Members, both Opposition Members and my hon. Friends, for their part in that.

I thank both Whips for helping us all to take the Bill through Committee in a timely manner, and I particularly thank my brilliant Government Whip. I also thank my colleague, the Under-Secretary of State, who has been a fantastic Minister to work with throughout the passage of the Bill. It would be inappropriate not to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Burton for keeping us inspired from time to time, and other Members have, too. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions and for the manner in which this debate has been held. I thank the Opposition Front-Bench Members for a constructive and useful debate.

I also want to thank the Clerks, Glenn McKee and the team, for the way in which they have worked with us to make sure that we have had everything we need. Mr Chairman, I thank you and your colleague, Sir Alan, for your work in getting through these sessions, not only on the days we finished early but on the days we finished late, to make sure that we were able to get the Bill through in a good, strong manner. I thank the Chair and the team of Clerks.

I thank the Doorkeepers, who have managed to keep us safe and secure when we vote and more generally, for their perseverance over the past few weeks. I also thank the team from Hansard, who have had the unenviable job of ensuring that all our words look as eloquent as possible on the page when it is published a short while after we finish. I am sure that is less of a challenge in some cases than in others, but I thank them for that.

Penultimately, I thank all my officials and our Department’s team who have worked so closely on the policy and the Bill. I thank the preparation team, the lawyers and parliamentary counsel, my private office and the Under-Secretary of State’s private office. They have all persevered and worked for many months to get the Bill to this stage. I thank everybody who has in any way played a part, large or small, in getting us here—finishing early on our final day.

Finally, I thank everybody who gave evidence, both written and oral, and who took the time to put forward their views and to contribute to the Bill. I am sure we will see each other on Monday for oral questions, which we will all be looking forward to, and excited about, over the weekend. With that in mind, I wish everybody a very happy Christmas and a very exciting 2016. I look forward to taking this debate further on Report.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

Further to that point of order, Mr Gray. I wonder whether the Minister is inviting me to speak for another 12 minutes so that we do not finish early. I, too, want to start by thanking you, Mr Gray, and Sir Alan Meale for chairing this Committee fairly and graciously, which is much appreciated. I also thank the Clerks for their excellent service in getting amendments in the right order and in the right place so that we could debate them.

I marvel that the Doorkeepers sit here through hours and hours of deliberation with such good humour to keep us safe and secure, but mostly they prevent us from dying of dehydration, which is much appreciated. I thank Hansard for turning around a great deal of material in such a short space of time. I thank the many organisations that have sent detailed evidence into the Committee or that have turned up to give oral evidence. I assure them that, at least on the Opposition side of the Committee, we have read all their evidence and taken it on board in our comments. It is excellent that they take such time to engage with our democracy in that way.

I thank my fellow shadow Minister for her input into the Bill, and I thank our Whip for always maintaining good humour whatever the circumstances. I thank members of the Committee, on both sides, who gave excellent speeches, with much passion at times. I highlight the interventions by Opposition Members, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West, who challenged Government Members on everything from the nature of their lunch and their lunch arrangements to how to improve their chances of being elected in future. As always in such Committees, Members emerged who keep us entertained, and this time it was the hon. Member for South Norfolk for the Conservative party and my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West on the Opposition side. We should commend them for keeping us amused at key points in our debate.

We know that some of the Bills we debate in Committee have a great deal of consensus, but that is not always the case. We have strong differences on this Bill, but I think we have managed to proceed with a great deal of civility on both sides of the Committee at all times, despite—I say this gently, having been in this place for nearly 11 years—now knowing what it is like to experience a hyperactive Whip. I am not sure that I want to experience it ever again, so I hope the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon has a really, really chilled Christmas and comes back with a degree of levity to our proceedings in the main Chamber on Report.

I, too, thank the Ministers for their helpful responses at times and for disagreeing with us so civilly. I wish everyone a merry Christmas and a happy new year.

Housing and Planning Bill (Fifteenth sitting)

Debate between Brandon Lewis and Roberta Blackman-Woods

Tuesday 8th December 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Brandon Lewis]

That is a challenge for me, Mr Gray. I will keep an eye on the clock to see if we can improve on the two and a half hours we have spent on one clause thus far today.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

No repetition or deviation.

[Brandon Lewis]

I will endeavour to take the hon. Lady’s comments on board.

If the amendment were accepted, applications for major and potentially for very minor developments—right down to applications for one house—in underperforming London boroughs could be submitted directly to the Mayor. For a typical London borough, if applicants chose to apply directly to the Mayor, that could run to literally hundreds of applications per year. I suspect that my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon and others would agree that that would not fit in with the important role of the Mayor as a strategic decision maker.

It is right that the Mayor of London has that important role in strategic decisions affecting the capital. He already has the power to decide to call in applications of potential strategic importance—for example, when more than 150 dwellings are proposed. We are taking steps in the Bill for the Mayor to set his own thresholds in high-growth areas, through the London plan. The clause will allow us to extend our successful designation process to assess performance in applications for non-major developments. The amendment has the potential to significantly change the Mayor’s role and go beyond providing that vital strategic direction in decision making across the capital. It would also have implications for the performance regime in and of itself. Planning applicants might expect the Mayor to be part of the safeguards, rather than the decision maker on how quickly their applications should be determined. I will continue to look at this issue and to engage with my hon. Friend, but at this stage I urge him to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brandon Lewis]

The clause has the effect of allowing the Secretary of State to grant development consent for housing that is related to a nationally significant infrastructure project. We think it is important that we change things for national infrastructure projects so that there is an ability to have related housing linked in. I will answer the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich more directly in a moment. I appreciate that he has asked probing questions, and I am glad that he and the hon. Member for City of Durham made those points because, despite all that Opposition Members say about wanting more housing, at every stage of the Bill, they seem to making arguments against anything that will deliver more housing.

The Planning Act 2008 does not permit any consent for housing. That means that, when a developer wants to include housing as part of a nationally significant infrastructure project, they must make a separate application for planning permission under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. That is inefficient, because obtaining separate consent under a separate regime adds time and cost to developers.

The hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich made a point about community influence. It might be worth his looking at how the national infrastructure planning framework actually works, because, in that, local communities have a say in any proposals for their area. The applicants are required to engage with and consult local communities from the outset. Local authorities have a role in assessing the adequacy of that consultation. I go further, in that clause 107 amends section 115 of the Planning Act 2008, to add “related housing development” to the types of development for which the Secretary of State can grant development consent. Related housing development is defined in the amended section 115. I am happy to be clear on the Floor of the Committee that it is about related housing development.

The notes to which the hon. Lady the Member for the City of Durham referred use the word “includes”, so they are not exhaustive, but just a few examples. If enacted, the clause will allow development consent to be granted for housing where it is on the same site or close to a nationally significant infrastructure project or is otherwise associated with it. I refer hon. Members back to my quote from a few moments ago.

We propose to set out in more detail matters, such as the maximum amount of housing that may be consented, the location of housing and how applications that include housing will be assessed, in guidance. The clause itself requires the Secretary of State to take account of any matters set out in guidance when deciding an application for development consent. This reform will improve the nationally significant infrastructure planning process, by creating the opportunity for developers—bearing in mind that, on average, there are only 15 applications a year—to benefit from a more efficient process for these kinds of applications for housing that is relevant, appropriate or related to an national infrastructure project.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I rise to emphasise to the Committee the point I made at the beginning of our discussion on the clause. To be clear, we are not objecting to the principle of having housing attached to large-scale infrastructure projects. We simply wanted to question the Minister on some of the details of the guidance. In scrutinising the Bill, it is important that we ask questions about whether the scheme will work in practice.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 107 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 108

Designation of urban development areas: procedure

[Brandon Lewis]

I beg to move amendment 183, in clause 108, page 51, line 16, after “subsection (1)” insert

“in relation to land in England”.

This amendment would state that the consultation requirement inserted into section 134 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 by clause 108(2) would only apply in relation to an order creating an urban development area in England.

[Brandon Lewis]

Amendments 183 and 184 make it clear that the duty to consult when designating land as an urban development area or establishing an urban development corporation will apply in England only, as planning policy in this respect is devolved. These are minor, technical amendments.

Amendment 183 agreed to.

Clause 108, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 109

Establishment of urban development corporations: procedure

Amendment made: 184, in clause 109, page 52, line 2, after “section” insert

“in relation to an urban development area in England”.—(Brandon Lewis.)

This amendment would state that the consultation requirement inserted into section 135 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 by clause 109(2) would only apply in relation to an order establishing a corporation for an urban development area in England.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I beg to move amendment 236, in clause 109, page 52, line 24, at end insert—

“(4) Section 136 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 [objects and general powers] is amended as follows.

(5) After subsection (2) insert—

‘(2A) Corporations under this Act must contribute the long-term sustainable development and place making of the new community.

(2B) Under this Act sustainable development and place making means managing the use, development and protection of land and natural resources in a way which enables people and communities to provide for their legitimate social, economic and cultural wellbeing while sustaining the potential of future generations to meet their own needs and in achieving sustainable development and place making, development corporations should—

(a) positively identify suitable land for development in line with the economic, social and environmental objectives so as to improve the quality of life, wellbeing and health of people and the community;

(b) contribute to the sustainable economic development of the community;

(c) contribute to the vibrant cultural and artistic development of the community;

(d) protect and enhance the natural and historic environment;

(e) contribute to mitigation and adaptation to climate change in line with the objectives of the Climate Change Act 2008;

(f) positively promote high quality and inclusive design;

(g) ensure that decision-making is open, transparent, participative and accountable; and

(h) ensure that assets are managed for long-term interest of the community.’

(6) Section 4 of the New Towns Act 1981 [The objects and general powers of Development Corporations] is amended as follows.

(7) For subsection (1) substitute—

‘(1) The objects of a development corporation established for the purpose of a new town or Garden City shall be to secure the physical laying out of infrastructure and the long-term sustainable development and place making of the new community.

(1A) Under this Act sustainable development and place making means managing the use, development and protection of land and natural resources in a way which enables people and communities to provide for their legitimate social, economic and cultural wellbeing while sustaining the potential of future generations to meet their own needs and in achieving sustainable development, development corporations should—

(a) positively identify suitable land for development in line with the economic, social and environmental objectives so as to improve the quality of life, wellbeing and health of people and the community;

(b) contribute to the sustainable economic development of the community;

(c) contribute to the vibrant cultural and artistic development of the community;

(d) protect and enhance the natural and historic environment;

(e) contribute to mitigation and adaptation to climate change in line with the objectives of the Climate Change Act 2008;

(f) positively promote high quality and inclusive design;

(g) ensure that decision-making is open, transparent, participative and accountable; and

(h) ensure that assets are managed for long-term interest of the community.’”

This amendment would insert place-making objectives for both UDC’s in Local Government Act 1980 and for New Town Development Corporations in the New Towns Act 1981 and sets out a high quality purpose for making the development of scale growth.

The clause relates to the procedure for establishing urban development corporations. The purpose of amendment 236 is to try to ensure that if new developments are established under this regime, they conform, at least to a degree, to garden city principles. I am sure that I do not need to remind Committee members about this. I am sure that they all follow matters to do with setting up new towns and garden cities with as much fascination as I do. The Government put through a new garden city under an urban development corporation last year.

Opposition Members’ concern about the procedure relates to the fact that although urban development corporations can deliver new housing and even some associated infrastructure, in their current form they most certainly do not deliver garden cities, because they are not underpinned by garden city principles. The purpose of the amendment is to try to ensure that they are—that they contribute in that way. In particular, the amendment, as opposed to some of the measures that we discussed earlier in our proceedings, focuses on sustainable development and ensuring that the new housing developments are sustainable for the future. They would have built into them, for example, provision to ensure that they contributed to

“the vibrant cultural and artistic development of the community”.

They would

“protect and enhance the natural and historic environment”.

They would also—I am quite concerned that this is missing from the Bill at present—have to

“contribute to mitigation and adaptation to climate change in line with the objectives of the Climate Change Act 2008”.

They would have to

“promote high quality and inclusive design”.

They would have to ensure that decision making was

“open, transparent, participative and accountable”

and that assets were managed for the

“long-term interest of the community.”

The amendment is also designed to ensure that local people are very much involved in the setting up of a new town or garden city and with the infrastructure and the area’s long-term development.

This approach has been helpfully outlined for the whole Committee by the Town and Country Planning Association. In fact, the manifesto that it recently launched in Parliament directly addresses this clause and the amendment to it. Basically, it argues that planning in this country needs to be much more people centred and to get back to some of its roots. It points out that Planning4People is a coalition of organisations and individuals who share a common belief in the value of place making to achieve a just and sustainable future. Together, they are determined to ensure that planning shapes the kind of places that this nation deserves. Planning must change so that it is genuinely focused on people’s needs. Our objective is to bring about the rebirth of the creative, social town planning, which did so much to lay the foundations of a civilised Britain—

Housing and Planning Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

Debate between Brandon Lewis and Roberta Blackman-Woods

Tuesday 8th December 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Brandon Lewis]

It has been enlightening to have effectively a second clause stand part debate on clause 102. The amendments clearly relate to clause 102, so I will respond to them in that context.

I was particularly taken by my hon. Friend’s comments about the Roman forts. I would encourage his father to visit the Caister Roman fort to see how we do it in Great Yarmouth and give us some views on how to get some development around that.

I was amused by the comments of the hon. Member for Bootle about a centralist approach, which I assume were tongue-in-cheek. In his opening remarks, my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough perfectly summed up what the amendments do. Having been a councillor for 11 years under a Labour Government, I know what centralism in local authority planning terms feels like.

With the best will in the world, the amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood miss a key point, which is that permission in principle is driven locally—planning permission in principle will come through decisions made by local people in their local communities. That is a fundamental fact. I know the hon. Lady was not here when we touched on that at the end of last week.

Amendment 285 would require the Secretary of State to set out in regulations that sufficient testing of a site must take place before permission in principle is granted. The regulations also set out that adequate funding is provided to carry that out. I will come back to that in detail in a moment.

I have two fundamental concerns about amendment 285. First, prescribing the particulars to be addressed when granting permission in principle builds unhelpful rigidity into the process. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South made the point very well. We have been clear that we consider the particulars to be granted permission in principle should be use, location and amount of development. The approach taken in the Bill is a prudent, balanced one that allows for the particulars to be set out in secondary legislation. It gives us the flexibility to ensure that permission in principle works as intended.

My second concern is the detailed nature of the issues that amendment 284 requires to be fully addressed at the permission in principle stage. We have been clear from the very beginning that, in order for the measures to deliver real change in unlocking sites and avoiding unnecessary costs, permission in principle should give up-front certainty on the core matters underpinning the basic suitability of a site, namely its use, location and amount of development, and allow matters of detail to be agreed subsequently, as we have outlined before.

Amendment 284 proposes that matters of detail, such as density, affordable housing provision, community and social infrastructure requirements, be settled at the permission in principle stage. Let me be clear that those are matters that should be addressed before development is allowed to proceed, and the local planning authority may well consider them when deciding whether to grant permission in principle. However, if we were to require those to be covered by permission in principle, far more detailed information and analysis would be required, which would entirely negate the value of the Government’s measures and effectively duplicate the existing outline planning application process. Matters such as affordable housing contribution and community infrastructure provision will be agreed and negotiated at the technical detail stage, in line with local and national policy.

On amendment 285, clause 102 will enable permission in principle to be granted when a site is allocated in qualifying documents. The Secretary of State will prescribe a qualifying document only if it has been through a suitably robust process, including public consultation and a site assessment. We intend to set out in secondary legislation that the qualifying documents will be local plans, neighbourhood plans and the brownfield register. Before allocating a site in a local plan, as I am sure Members will appreciate, local authorities already go through a detailed site investigation and assessment process as part of their strategic housing land availability assessment.

In the neighbourhood planning context, the neighbourhood planning qualifying body should carry out an appraisal of options and an assessment of individual sites if it intends to allocate sites for development. Any such appraisals carried out by qualifying bodies are subject to scrutiny by both the local planning authority and an independent examiner. Neighbourhood plans also go through a full referendum of the local community. That is absolute local power in the hands of local people—true localism.

Therefore, extremely robust testing already exists in plan-making processes, and the whole purpose of the permission in principle model is to draw on that and make the best use of all the local effort, detailed work and resource at the plan-making stage, so that we get back to what we should be aiming for, which is a plan-led system. As the Government’s measures propose to utilise existing plan-making processes, we do not anticipate additional burdens on local authorities.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

Can the Minister deal with the point about the nature of qualifying documents? People will have been involved in a process to put local plans in place, and in a consultation system, but they will not have understood that that will lead to permission in principle, because it was not there when they were involved in the previous process. Will the measures apply to plans developed from now on, or plans already in existence?

[Brandon Lewis]

Local people go through the process in the full knowledge that they are looking to allocate land. One frustration expressed by areas—while travelling around the country, I have spoken to people in a lot of areas that have done both local and neighbourhood plans—is that they go through all that work and must then effectively do it all again for every individual planning application, which defeats the object of the work that they have done in the first place. Our proposals will back up the work that they have done.

I finish on this point. On the brownfield register, I can reassure the hon. Lady that we intend to require local planning authorities to assess the sites that they propose to put on local registers against criteria to be specified in regulations. That will ensure that the sites are suitable for housing. We will shortly consult on our proposed criteria. We expect them to assess whether sites are available and capable of being redeveloped for housing, and whether development is viable. Local planning authorities already take such matters into account when assessing potential sites in their strategic land availability assessments. Local authority decisions will have regard to the national planning policy framework and to local plans. Our intention is that local authorities will draw on existing strategic housing land availability assessment processes as much as possible to identify and test the suitability of sites for inclusion on the brownfield register.

We also have a rigorous new burdens assessment process in our Department to ensure that local planning authorities receive the relevant resources to meet their statutory obligations. I therefore ask the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendments.

Housing and Planning Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

Debate between Brandon Lewis and Roberta Blackman-Woods

Thursday 3rd December 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Brandon Lewis]

With your agreement and the Committee’s, Mr Gray, I move that we take clauses 92 to 95 stand part together.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I rise to ask the Minister a question about clause 94. Can he enlighten us on how neighbourhood planning forums and parish councils developing neighbourhood plans will take on board the provisions of clause 102? I will not go into the detail of clause 102 at the moment, but there will be neighbourhood plans, and there might or might not be allocated land for development. What involvement will they have in permission in principle being granted?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I have already outlined the choices that many local authorities throughout the country are having to make. Many councillors are facing the extremely difficult to decision of whether to cut the planning department, care services or education services. Although the hon. Gentleman is right to the extent—

[Brandon Lewis]

I am trying to work out where this is.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I will be getting on to the provisions in just a moment. If the Minister is suggesting from a sedentary position that I should not be addressing the intervention, perhaps that is a matter for the Chair. I am seeking to answer the hon. Gentleman’s questions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brandon Lewis]

New clause 17 and new schedule 2 insert a new section into, and amend section 17 of, the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. The measures enable the Secretary of State to ask the Mayor of London or a combined authority to prepare a development plan. The Mayor of London will be able to do so where a local planning authority is a London borough, and a combined authority will be able to do so where the local planning authority is a constituent authority or combined authority. The Mayor or combined authority will be responsible for having the document examined and approving it.

Currently, where it is necessary for the Secretary of State to intervene to prepare or revise a development plan, his only option is to take over responsibility for the process of preparing, examining and approving. Our proposals will move more power back to a local level. Mayors and combined authorities provide strong and directly accountable governance, which makes them appropriate bodies to ensure that plans that support the delivery of new homes are in place across their areas. The new clause and new schedule, together with clause 99, enable more targeted and appropriate intervention where a local planning authority has failed to take action to get a plan in place, despite having every opportunity to do so.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I want to take the Minister to what clause 99 actually says:

“(1) This section applies if the Secretary of State thinks that a local planning authority are failing or omitting to do anything it is necessary for them to do in connection with the preparation, revision or adoption of a development plan document.

(2) The Secretary of State may—

(a) prepare or revise (as the case may be) the document, or

(b) give directions to the authority in relation to the preparation or revision of the document.

(3) The Secretary of State must either—

(a) hold an independent examination, or

(b) direct the authority to submit the document for independent examination.”

I am happy to take a correction from the Minister, but that seems to me to be a total and fundamental change to how we do local plan making. In the current system, local authorities prepare a local plan, consult on it and take it to an inspector, who, through a public inquiry, either approves or does not approve it. I may be reading too much into the clause, but it appears to allow the Secretary of State to intervene in the process and say, “Hold on. I do not like what is happening in that plan. I am going to change it.”

[Brandon Lewis]

rose—

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

If the Minister is rising to clarify that the Secretary of State cannot do so, that would be helpful.

[Brandon Lewis]

I am rising to say that the Secretary of State has had the power to do that from the very beginning. Clause 99 retains the existing powers and allows for more targeted intervention, so that it will not be quite as heavy-handed as it is at the moment. That should be a welcome change.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I hope that that is what the clause is really designed to do, because the Secretary of State’s intervention powers are rarely used at the moment. It is not custom and practice for the Secretary of State to intervene in the plan-making process, and clause 99 appeared to be an attempt to widen the scope for the Secretary of State to intervene under clause 99(1). If the Minister is reassuring us that this is a narrowing of the circumstances in which the Secretary of State should intervene, we will take him at his word, but the terminology used in the clause does not quite suggest that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brandon Lewis]

This clause, which amends sections 2A and 74(1B) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, empowers the Secretary of State to prescribe

“applications of potential strategic importance”

by reference to the Mayor of London’s spatial development strategy, otherwise known as the London plan or the London boroughs development plan document.

At present, the Mayor exercises powers under the 1990 Act to call in for his own decision certain planning applications of potential strategic importance for Greater London or to direct a local planning authority to refuse planning permission. The Secretary of State prescribes in secondary legislation which applications are subject to these powers. The practical effect of the clause will be to expand the circumstances in which the Secretary of State can prescribe applications as being of potential strategic importance, for the purposes of the Mayor’s call-in and refusal powers. For instance, it could allow different thresholds in growth areas identified in the London plan, allowing the Mayor greater influence over development in those areas where necessary. That would be an important additional tool to allow the Mayor to encourage development in key locations, helping to ensure the delivery of much needed additional homes.

The clause will also enable the Mayor, in circumstances prescribed by the Secretary of State, to issue consultation directions. These directions would require a London borough to consult the Mayor before granting planning permission for development described in the direction. The Secretary of State can already, under existing powers, issue similar directions to require local authorities to consult the Mayor when receiving applications for development on certain safeguarded wharfs on the River Thames or developments that would affect key London sightlines. In conjunction with the Mayor’s power to direct refusal of planning applications and policies in the London plan, those directions control development that might harm London’s capacity for waterborne freight or its protected views.

The effect of the clause would be to enable the Secretary of State to devolve decisions on which wharfs and sightlines to protect to the Mayor, which would complement the Mayor’s existing strategic planning role and allow the Mayor to be more responsive to London’s changing needs in the future.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 101 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 102

Permission in principle for development of land

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I beg to move amendment 230, in clause 102, page 45, line 14, after “of”, insert “housing”.

This amendment makes clear that “permission in principle” is limited to housing land in England.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

These amendments are quite straightforward. The explanatory notes state:

“Permission in principle for development of land”

will apply only to housing sites and to future plans. I would be very grateful if the Minister clarified whether permission in principle can apply to any form of development in England, including highly controversial development, for example waste and energy sites, and what exactly is meant by “other register” or “other document”. We are not very clear what that means, and some clarity would be very helpful.

[Brandon Lewis]

The clause sets out that permission in principle can be granted in relation to land that is allocated in a qualifying document for development of a prescribed description. The clause gives us the power to prescribe in secondary legislation which classes of development should be granted permission in principle. I hope that I can give the hon. Lady the assurance she needs. I will be very clear with the Committee today and answer her question directly.

We intend to limit the type of development that can be granted permission in principle to housing-led development. As the hon. Lady rightly outlined, the amendment, which I take from what she said is probing, would mean that it was not possible to have mixed use. That is why we are very clear that it must be housing-led development. Our intention is to set out in secondary legislation that as long as a site allocation includes residential development, local authorities will be able to grant permission in principle for other uses. For example, in a mixed-use development, developers may wish to have some retail premises, community buildings and other things that are compatible with residential properties, but ultimately that will be a decision for the local authority. I hope that the hon. Lady will be able to withdraw the amendment.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

Does “housing-led” mean predominantly housing? There could be a mixed development scheme that is housing-led in that housing happens first, but then it is actually a massive new employment complex or a waste or energy complex.

[Brandon Lewis]

First, that would be a matter for local authorities to decide. We will deal with this matter in secondary legislation, but we are clear that permission in principle will be housing-led. The reason for not limiting it to just houses is to allow for mixed use. For example—I am happy to make this clear to the Committee—if retail is mixed in with houses, that can be quite good in getting a community together. There may be a community centre or even a school, but it has to be a housing development or a housing-led development.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I am partly reassured by what the Minister has said, although I am still a little anxious about the total scope of developments that could be given permission in principle. If the Committee will bear with me, I would like to take the Minister’s comments away and think about them. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brandon Lewis]

I hope I can give the hon. Lady the reassurance she requires. With regard to her opening remarks, it is right that I put on the record that we are running behind on our agreed timetable, but that is at the request of the Opposition. That is why we are where we are. I am happy to be flexible on that, as I have been in accepting debates on late amendments, to ensure we have full and proper debates, as I am sure the hon. Lady will confirm.

I want to reassure the hon. Lady that we intend to set out a sensible duration for a permission in principle created by a plan or register in secondary legislation. We have no intention of allowing a permission in principle to exist in perpetuity. The power in the Bill currently gives an important flexibility to ensure that, in appropriate circumstances, where a plan or register is revised or updated, it does not automatically mean that permission in principle comes to an end. This is necessary for technical reasons to ensure that permission in principle can work effectively. I will give an example.

We propose that the brownfield register will be annually updated. In those circumstances, we would want to ensure that permission in principle could live longer than a one-year period. Because we will be setting out the duration of permission in principle in secondary legislation, we intend to consult. We will do that shortly and will seek views from experts in the sector and from the general public. Planning in principle is something that experts in the sector have called for. Setting a timeframe in the Bill for permission in principle is therefore unnecessary and would remove the flexibility to work as intended.

Amendment 233 would entirely undermine the purpose of the clause, although I appreciate that the hon. Lady has made it clear that this is a probing amendment. Permission in principle will agree and establish the fundamental principle of development once—namely, at plan-making stage. This ensures that the existing work local authorities undertake when they allocate a site as suitable for development during the plan-making process is made good use of.

Currently, under section 70 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, when the local authority determines an application for technical details consent, it cannot revisit the principles agreed by the permission in principle. Amendment 233 would have the effect of giving the local planning authority scope to reopen the principle of development and would reintroduce the uncertainty that the clause will address.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I want to get this clear: is the Minister saying that before a piece of land is put on the register and given permission in principle, local authorities must have carried out a full archaeological survey of that land, and checked whether it is liable to flooding or subsidence and a whole range of things that they might not have to do normally to put it on the register? If that is what the Minister is suggesting, it would seem to incur huge costs for the local authority.

[Brandon Lewis]

Actually, what I am suggesting is that the amendment would undermine the entire principle of the permission in principle. I remind the Committee that although the local planning authority will not be able to revisit the decision as far as the fundamental principle of development is concerned when determining an application for technical details consent, it will at that point be required to consider the details of the application fully and properly against the national planning policy framework and local policy. Technical details consent can therefore be refused if the detail is not acceptable.

Amendment 234 would have the effect of allowing the principles of development to be revisited in determining an application for technical details after five years. As I said, we intend to set out a sensible duration for this principle in secondary legislation and will consult on that shortly. I strongly discourage an amendment that sets out a fixed timeframe in the Bill because it would take away the flexibility for the principle to work as intended. Therefore, I hope the hon. Lady will withdraw the amendment.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I think I have even more grave concerns about the clause and how it will affect the planning system than I did before the Minister spoke. Actually, I would like to seek the leave of the Committee to withdraw the amendment so that I can consult with people more widely in the planning sector about what this could mean in practice, particularly for local planning authorities, and what costs they will incur. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Stephen Hammond]

I want to raise two issues with the Minister, which I think are appropriate to raise under this clause but would not have been appropriate when discussing the amendments to which I was speaking a few moments ago. One of the issues follows on directly from what my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton said. The thrust of the Bill is to ensure that housing suppliers build more housing. He spoke about how the Bill could help small and medium-sized developers.

Many of us, during our times as Members of Parliament, will have had people come to us who are frustrated with the application process and the lengthy time of it, notwithstanding the inability to pay for a pre-application process. I ask the Minister to think about whether there is a way of writing into the Bill a fast-track or accelerated process for small and medium-sized enterprises with small pieces of land, for which they could pay a fee. That would perhaps enable smaller pockets of land to be developed and help smaller industries. I ask the Minister to think about that.

The clause seems to open up some real possibilities. As a London MP, I know that there are pieces of land that do not fall wholly within one borough. In fact, this time next week my local planning committee will decide on an application that is right on the boundary between two boroughs. Is there a way of allowing those sorts of applications not to go to a particular borough? For instance, I know of a London borough that is very slow in bringing forward applications, while the borough next door has a reputation for being extraordinarily efficient. Some plots of land for housing development are on the boundary between boroughs.

The hon. Member for City of Durham, when speaking on her new clauses, talked about sustainable communities and local transport links. In some instances, the boundary line between boroughs is purely arbitrary, and that must be true of other parts of the country, too. Will my hon. Friend the Minister consider allowing applicants to apply to what they regard as the more efficient authority?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I beg to move amendment 235, in clause 103, page 48, line 16, at end insert—

“and in particular the achievement of sustainable development and good design”.

This amendment would insert an explicit duty to consider sustainable development and place making when including sites on brownfield register.

Before I speak to the amendment, I want to read something into the record to counter what the Minister said earlier. There was no agreement with the Opposition that we would reach clause 103 today. The brownfield register and permission in principle are important issues that require greater consideration. My hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood tabled amendments to which she hoped to speak, and it is unfortunate that the information communicated to the Minister, by whom I do not know, was not entirely correct.

Amendment 235 seeks to add into the legislation that the brownfield register and land that is on the brownfield register should conform to the place-making and sustainable development obligations that I set out earlier when discussing the local planning part of the Bill. It would amend proposed new section 14A(7)(b) in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 so that to “national policies and advice” would be added

“and in particular the achievement of sustainable development and good design”.

Due to the late hour and the fact that we have been in this Committee for many hours today, I will not go through again what I think good design should entail, but I hope, given how we are considering the clauses, that we will be able to return to some of these important issues at a later stage in our deliberations. Amendment 235 is essentially a probing amendment to ask the Minister whether he would consider adding that line to the Bill, and if not, why not.

[Brandon Lewis]

I hope I can give the hon. Lady some reassurance in response to her probing amendment. She and I stood outside this room and had a conversation. We, as a Committee, have been very flexible. We gave the extended time she asked for by moving provisions from Tuesday to today, to allow for a longer debate. We are working to ensure we have proper time to scrutinise the Bill properly, so I think her comments are somewhat misguided.

Amendment 235 would explicitly require local planning authorities to consider sustainable development and good design when entering sites on the brownfield register. The clause, as it stands, will enable the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring a planning authority in England to compile and maintain registers of a particular kind of land. We intend to use that power to require local planning authorities to compile registers of previously developed land that is suitable for housing development. I emphasise that the clause already provides a power to require local planning authorities to have regard to the national planning policy framework when making decisions about sites to include on local registers. The framework makes it clear that sustainable development should be at the heart of both plan making and decision making, and we are in agreement on wanting good-quality design to be part of the process.

The national planning policy framework also emphasises the importance of good design, stating that it is a

“key aspect of sustainable development”

that should

“contribute positively to making places better for people.”

It follows that decisions on sites to be included on the register will already take account of planning policies on sustainable development and good design.

Furthermore, local authority decisions about sites to include on local registers will be required to take the policies of the local plan into account, and sustainable development will have been considered as part of that process. Sites considered suitable for permission in principle still need technical detail consent, and design is one issue that will be considered at that stage.

I will say to the hon. Lady what I said to one of her colleagues last week: if there are amendments on planning issues that Opposition Members have not tabled in time but wish to debate, I am happy to look at debating them, as I have done before. The hon. Lady kindly thanked me for doing that before, and I am happy to give that flexibility again. I therefore ask her to withdraw her amendment.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I have noted those comments and will perhaps seek clarity from the Clerk outside of the Committee about how that can be achieved. I have heard what the Minister has to say on the amendment. It is a pity he is not taking up the opportunity to write into the primary legislation that the land should contribute to the achievement of sustainable development and good design, but we will return to that in our deliberations on the Bill, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 103 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.—(Julian Smith.)

Housing and Planning Bill (Eleventh sitting)

Debate between Brandon Lewis and Roberta Blackman-Woods

Tuesday 1st December 2015 Public Bill Committees

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Brandon Lewis)]

Welcome back to the Committee, Mr Gray. I look forward to serving under your chairmanship for the rest of this week and potentially the rest of our consideration of the Bill.

Amendment 148 and amendment 151, which is for London, would require housing associations to adhere to strict rules when replacing property sold under the voluntary right to buy and, indeed, building those extra homes we all want, including rules on how much can be spent and the type, tenure and location of the properties. That strikes me as the worst kind of command and control, “Westminster knows best” approach.

I find it interesting that one of the authors of the amendment is someone who has described the Bill as the end of localism, yet here we have the most anti-localist amendment I have seen for some considerable time. It goes much further than the right to buy ever has in dictating what delivery bodies can do. The hon. Member for Harrow West may be happy to extend freedoms and flexibility to his friends on councils, but housing associations have proved themselves to be consistently far more adept at responding to the challenge of delivering new housing supply, and were largely responsible for exceeding the target of 160,000 new affordable homes under the previous Government.

Our approach is very different from the Opposition’s. We have ensured through the deal with the sector that decisions are made at the most appropriate level by professional organisations that we trust. Nationally, we have ensured that for every home sold under the deal, one extra new home will be built, thereby doubling housing supply. What type of home and where it should be are decisions that will and should be taken by housing associations in the light of local conditions and need, which are covered in local plans. That is what true localism means, and I hope the hon. Member for City of Durham will withdraw the amendment.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

May I, too, say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray?

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I am an absolute optimist. Mr Gray.

Once again, I am disappointed by the Minister’s response. I am not sure how it is that Westminster can know best when forcing unwilling housing associations to subject their stock to the right to buy, but it is not okay for us to want to ensure—

[Brandon Lewis]

I emphasise, as I did this morning, that it is a voluntary agreement that the housing associations put to the Government. It is localism.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

My understanding from what the Minister said this morning was that, whether or not housing associations had voted for the voluntary deal, they would all be subject to putting their stock up for right to buy. My question to the Minister is why it is not okay for us to want to ensure that enough affordable and, in particular, social rented homes exist for the most vulnerable in our communities following the exercise of right to buy. I am sorry that he did not engage with the Opposition’s genuine concern that without like-for-like, one-for-one replacement of the same tenure, we will lose greatly needed social rented stock. That is what commentators and housing associations are telling us. On that basis, I will divide the Committee on the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brandon Lewis]

We are alive to the concerns about the fact that more and more homes are being bought as buy to lets, which is why, as my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough outlined, in the spending review the Chancellor introduced a new rate of stamp duty that is 3% higher for the purchase of buy to lets. That builds on the fiscal changes made in the Budget to mortgage rate relief and sends a clear message about the Government’s direction of travel. We are doing work on a wider scale to ensure we get the balance right between people who want to own their own home and those who are involved in buy to lets.

Let me be clear about our objectives. We want to ensure that private investors, especially those who are not resident in this country, do not distort the market or squeeze out families and prevent them from buying and owning a home of their own. We are not, nor should we be, hindering the life chances and social mobility of individuals who want to use the opportunity of owning a home to move on and up. It would be wholly unfair to restrict housing association tenants who want to take the opportunity to buy a home of their own.

Tenants who bought their home under the voluntary right-to-buy scheme used the freedom available to all other home owners, including those who used the existing right-to-buy scheme under previous Governments, both Labour and Conservative. That scheme contains no restriction on letting, so it would be unfair to impose one on housing association tenants. A restriction on reselling or letting their home would limit their ability to move for work or family reasons. We do not think that is reasonable or necessary, given that the agreement includes a commitment to deliver extra homes though new supply. I hope that the hon. Lady will withdraw her amendment.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I have heard what the Minister has to say. The Opposition are aware that the autumn statement contained such changes. Why is it unfair to people who purchase under right to buy to restrict who they can sell their property to for a relatively short period, but it is not unfair to insist that housing remains for people who desperately need it at an affordable rent? We know that moving such properties into the private rented sector at market rents will put them out of the reach of many people if additional money does not come out of the public purse. I would like some time to reflect on the Minister’s response. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 56 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 57

Grants by Greater London Authority

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

As I said earlier, these are largely probing amendments seeking to elicit more information from the Minister about how the portability mechanism might work in practice. To my knowledge, we did not accuse housing associations of failing to deliver on the voluntary agreement or failing to have a regulator in place. We simply sought more information.

If I could drag us all back to reality for a moment, housing associations did not wake up one morning on 23 September or thereabouts and think, “Gosh, we must go and have a voluntary agreement with the Government on the right to buy. Let’s see if we can catch them just before the Conservative party conference and see if we can agree something.” It was within a context of the Government saying, “Come up with a voluntary deal, housing associations, or we will put something on statute.”

[Brandon Lewis]

I appreciate we are some way off the scope of the Bill, Mr Gray, but could I respond to a very direct point?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I beg to move amendment 154, in clause 59, page 25, line 8, at end insert—

‘( ) The discount should remain in perpetuity.”

This amendment would ensure that homes sold under the Right to Buy remain as discounted housing in perpetuity.

I might be able to anticipate what the Minister will say about the amendment, given the extensive discussion we had on a similar matter regarding starter homes. Nevertheless, it is important that the Opposition seek to get more information from the Minister about why properties sold under right to buy can attract a discount for purchase, and why it is not possible for that purchase to remain in perpetuity, so the number of homes lost to home ownership under the right to buy could be replaced in a very easy way: as somebody gets a discount, buys the home, sells it and moves on to another property that they might buy on the open market, the property they are leaving would attract a discount again.

Millions of homes have been lost in the social rented sector through right to buy, and the amendment would ensure their ongoing availability. It also means that the discount on a right to buy property would be a cheaper way to ensure that homes were available for low-cost home ownership, and probably a much cheaper way to fund the replacement than any of the other measures that we have considered. However, this is a straightforward amendment asking why we do not consider how we might provide a discount in perpetuity. I would be interested to hear from the Minister why he thinks it is not a good idea.

[Brandon Lewis]

I appreciate the hon. Lady’s opening remarks and her thoughts on what we might say, but I must respond to the amendment as written. Interestingly, it highlights and reconfirms the fact that the Opposition are keen to ensure that housing associations do not receive full market value for their properties; they are seeking to remove that possibility from the individual tenant. The other option is that they want the Government to pay compensation over and over again every time the property is sold. I might not be overly surprised that they have a cavalier attitude to public money, but I doubt that that is genuinely what they intend; at least, I hope it is not.

If the intention behind the clause is to protect stock, I say once again that stock will be built up, as extra homes will be built as a result of the measures. The amendment as drafted makes no sense. It would be either deeply unfair or deeply profligate, depending which way it is read. I hope that the hon. Lady will withdraw it.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

If the Minister is absolutely certain in his assertions about the waste of public money, perhaps we could do a cost-benefit analysis of bringing houses back through the route in the amendment rather than completely replacing them and rebuilding elsewhere. Again, this is a probing amendment. It would help all of us in our deliberations on these clauses if we had had more information about the extension of right to buy to housing associations and how it might work in practice so that replacement continues.

I hear what the Minister says, but so far I have not seen any evidence to back up the points that he is making. I do not want to press the amendment to a vote at this point, but it would be extremely helpful to have the information to back up the points that he has made in his response. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brandon Lewis]

The voluntary right-to-buy deal sets out the work done jointly by the Government and the sector to develop an efficient implementation process. This process would include measures that exist in the current right-to-buy scheme, such as eligibility tests and measures to limit fraudulent purchases—not the least among all the points raised by my hon. Friends earlier.

In the hon. Lady’s closing remarks, she made what was almost an aside about checking whether extending right to buy is—I think I quote her correctly—a “waste of money”. I say to her that perhaps she should meet people such as Wendy, whom I met in Liverpool on Friday, and others who have been able to take advantage of right to buy over the past few decades and support the reinvigorated scheme. I am getting messages from people who look forward to being able to benefit from the extended right-to-buy scheme. They will tell the hon. Lady that home ownership is not by any means a waste of money, nor is the fact that the Government will make sure that housing associations receive the full market value to use to deliver new homes.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

My point was not that the right to buy and discounts are a waste of money but that, if it went to somebody who was money laundering or was, in some other way, not fit to get the right-to-buy discount, that would be a waste of money.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brandon Lewis]

All these checks and balances will be developed as part of the detailed design of the scheme currently under way and will indeed be informed by the pilot schemes announced by the Chancellor in the spending review. It is not necessary or appropriate to include them in the Bill. The clauses in the Bill are those that are necessary to make the deal work, they are not needed to duplicate the deal. I hope that the hon. Lady will withdraw the amendment.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I said that this was largely a probing amendment to see whether there was support from the Minister for giving guidance to housing associations on the sorts of eligibility tests that they might wish to carry out. It is interesting how Government Members have sought to categorise this as just further regulation when what we are really seeking to do on behalf of housing associations is ensure that they can carry out necessary checks to make sure that money is being used widely. At the risk of boring myself, I feel I have to reiterate, yet again, that the Opposition are not against the right to buy as a principle, we are simply deeply concerned and opposed to the way that this particular scheme is being rolled out with so little information in the public domain. As the amendment was largely probing, I beg to ask leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 59, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 60 and 61 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 62

Payments to Secretary of State

Housing and Planning Bill (Tenth sitting)

Debate between Brandon Lewis and Roberta Blackman-Woods

Tuesday 1st December 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I am sure the hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct about that. However, in the short period of time since the pilots have been announced and our debate today, we have not all been able to speak to those running the pilots. Indeed, such communication as we have had suggests that they are still putting the details of the pilots together.

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Brandon Lewis)]

I thought I would try and help the hon. Lady. I do not know whether she has tried picking up the phone and speaking to any of the chief executives, as I have, but it is quite easy to speak to them. I am sure that they will be happy to talk her through their excitement in being allowed to offer ownership to a whole new group of people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brandon Lewis]

The deal was signed and, as I understand from the comments of David Orr, all the housing associations that took part in that vote understood that it was a deal for the entire sector. Some 96% of stock is now signed up, and of those that did not have time to sign up or did not otherwise sign up, there is a fair proportion of that 4% that benefit from the right to buy for the transfer of stock anyway. It would be an extraordinarily controlling move if we were to include in the Bill restrictions on housing association decision-making powers, especially as we have worked closely with housing associations to reach a voluntary agreement in the first place, particularly in the light of recent decisions by the Office for National Statistics.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

Will the Minister explain to the Committee why it is not a controlling mechanism to force housing associations to sell right-to-buy stock when they do not wish to do so, but it is a controlling mechanism to try to include important exemptions, across the whole sector, in the Bill?

[Brandon Lewis]

The hon. Lady underlines the point I made a few moments ago. She and the Labour party simply do not understand that the housing associations themselves want to extend the right to buy. This is a voluntary agreement that the sector put to the Government, which we accepted. The amendments suggest that Opposition Members do not trust housing associations to protect their own clients. I am sorry that they feel that way. The Government trust housing associations to look after their tenants. We believe that they have their tenants’ best interests at heart and that they will use their discretion wisely.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, and when we come to discuss the pay-to-stay provisions, we will hopefully be able to re-emphasise it.

In evidence to the Select Committee, housing associations say that what they build over the next 10 years will change. They say:

“There will be less affordable rent and more low-cost home ownership going forward.”

We are not against more low-cost home ownership. We are trying to elicit from the Minister whether he thinks it important that the social rented housing is replaced, and whether the measures in the Bill make that more difficult or easier. Stonewater says it is

“looking at the product mix…We are re-profiling…our activity”.

L&Q states:

“We have committed to a minimum of 1,000 new affordable rented homes a year. That is less than we would have produced prior to the rent reduction.”

It is also clear from the evidence to the Select Committee that the change in business activity will not be immediately apparent. It will perhaps be 2018 before plans for affordable rents are effective, because many schemes are already in the pipeline and have already been costed, with some of them already being built.

The sector is anxious and it is not clear where the replacement costs will come from. The Committee has received two helpful notes on that topic. One of them is from the Chartered Institute of Housing, which has identified a funding gap, particularly in relation to the sale of high-value local authority housing—a matter we will probably come on to this afternoon. It questions how the Government will fund the whole scheme and make up that funding gap.

There were some announcements, and some additional capital was put forward, in the autumn statement last week. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich outlined earlier, in the last few days the Office for Budget Responsibility has said that it still thinks that there will be a reduction of 34,000 homes because of the measures in the Bill and in the Welfare Reform and Work Bill. There is a challenge to the Government to highlight clearly how the replacement will be funded.

I hope the Minister has looked at the very helpful briefing from the Chartered Institute of Housing—after all, the CIH knows something about the delivery of housing in the country—and at the note from PlaceShapers, which raised a very interesting issue for the Committee, which we perhaps have not talked about enough so far: how the valuation gap changes in different parts of the country. For example, in the north, a property could be sold for £50,000. There would be a discount attached to that. However, the replacement property would cost about £135,000 or even more. Replacement costs are coming in at about three times the level at which homes in the affordable rented sector are sold off.

Again, it is not clear from anything that we have heard from the Minister how replacement costs will be guaranteed, whether or not it will be on a like-for-like basis, and how he will seek to ensure that we are not losing the social rented homes that we so desperately need across all areas of the country, and how he will try to persuade housing associations that they should not alter their business plans at this time and not move away from the provision of affordable housing to rent. As the Minister knows, and indeed as all Committee members know, that is because we need more housing across all tenures, and it would be wrong of the Committee to support legislation that would cut support for the local cost of ownership, because that would happen at the expense of social housing to rent, which we desperately need.

[Brandon Lewis]

Amendment 147 and amendment 150, which is obviously for London, would put in the Bill a requirement that the Government must pay a grant that reimburses housing associations for the discount in a way that ensures, as the hon. Member for City of Durham said, they receive full market value for the property.

We have been very clear that we will compensate housing associations for the cost of the discount based on full market value as determined by the open market. In fact, I draw the attention of hon. Members from all parties to the document on the National Housing Federation website, which is the voluntary agreement the NHF put to the Government. In that document, the Government commitment is outlined very clearly in the bullet points—points 3 and 4, but particularly point 3—on the front page of that agreement.

Clauses 56 and 57 are drafted in a way that ensures that the Secretary of State is able to pay in grant to the housing association the amount of the discount once it has been calculated appropriately.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brandon Lewis]

As I keep saying, I believe that the hon. Gentleman is struggling with the concept of a voluntary deal. If the Government do not fulfil our part of the bargain, as outlined on the front page of the agreement, we will be in breach of the agreement, and we are not going to do that. Although I know that the NHF is very comfortable with where we are at, I remind it and the hon. Gentleman that the explanatory notes provide reassurance that the purpose of the clauses is to pay the discount. More importantly, the deal with the sector is crystal clear on that point. It states:

“Any sale would be at open-market value. The Government would compensate the housing association for the full value of the discount, in line with the practice introduced by the Right to Acquire.”

I am happy to reiterate that today.

I appreciate that the Opposition may be uncomfortable about the fact that we have secured a historic deal with the sector not only to deliver our manifesto commitment but to ensure that it builds more homes. However, any attempt to duplicate the deal in the Bill would not be appropriate or in the spirit of the voluntary agreement. It is not what the housing associations want, and it is not necessary to deal with the Opposition’s discomfort. I hope hon. Members withdraw the amendment.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I am really disappointed with the Minister’s response. Although he dealt to some extent with amendment 147, I do not think that he dealt at all with amendment 150. The whole point of the two amendments was to try to ensure that housing associations would have funds available not only to make up for the discount but to provide a one-for-one replacement. The Opposition have asked a series of questions about the discount, where the money will come from, and whether the Government guarantee that the money will be there for the full replacement.

[Brandon Lewis]

The hon. Lady has been generous in giving way, and I will be brief. I repeat that, as per the agreement, we will match up with our part of the deal to provide the full market value and cover the discount. Some housing associations have made it quite clear that they believe they will be able to build more than one extra home for every home sold.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

That clarification is helpful. We will take the Minister at his word, and I will go away and look at what he has put forward this morning. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Housing and Planning Bill (Seventh sitting)

Debate between Brandon Lewis and Roberta Blackman-Woods

Tuesday 24th November 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)]

I will be brief. I fully understand the need to be able to have exemptions in some circumstances. The law will need to take account of very different circumstances in different local authorities with very different levels of land supply and demand. The City of London comes to mind as an obvious example, although there will be other intensely urban areas where this is also an issue. Can the Minister give an assurance that this will be a tight test and that not only will the requirement for authorities to have regard to their obligations still obtain, but it will be within the Secretary of State’s power under the proposed regulations to make the granting of an exemption to a local authority conditional upon it satisfying certain conditions that the Secretary of State might lay down, such as a partnership with another local authority that has more land?

This is a slightly different example, but it is relevant. The City of London sponsors an academy in the London Borough of Southwark. The City, being a very small borough, does not have enough students for a high school of that kind, but it sends some of its students to the high school on land supplied by Southwark. Does the Minister think there is room for that kind of partnership and that conditions could be imposed on local authorities before the Secretary of State agrees to make an exemption?

[Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)]

I have a brief question for the Minister. Does he have any idea of how many local authorities are likely to be exempt and on what grounds? That would help us to make some sense of the clause.

[Brandon Lewis]

My hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk made a good point, and we will ensure that we take his comments forward when drawing up the regulations. When an authority finds itself exempt and the regulations detail an exemption process, we will require it to demonstrate how, if an exemption is granted, it will continue to support those on its register. That could be satisfied by it working in partnership with neighbouring or nearby authorities in the way my hon. Friend outlines.

Obviously, as it is an exemption policy, I would not want to prejudge who might or might not be looking for an exemption. I appreciate that there will be challenges in some areas, as the hon. Lady pointed out, and that places such as London might struggle to meet demand for self-build, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Harrow West, who is not in his place at the moment. That is why we have included a power for the Secretary of State to make regulations specifying the circumstances in which an authority may apply for an exemption when the time comes.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 10 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11

Further and consequential amendments

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brandon Lewis]

Further to that point of order, Sir Alan. It is important to respond to the hon. Lady’s point of order, because it does not give a clear picture. We need to be very clear about this: we are very happy, and I am very keen, to see proper debate and scrutiny of the Bill, which is why we are happy to take the time to go through this properly. There are no knives, and, as far as I understand it, we even gave flexibility and moved on from the original agreement, as we did on Thursday—when we spent a whole session of an hour and a half discussing one line with no votes, if I remember it correctly—and I even suggested to the hon. Lady then that we would be willing to accept late amendments in order to facilitate helping the Opposition. So I think the hon. Lady is being very disingenuous, to be blunt, in making that point. It is important that we keep a good pace to make sure that we are able to stick, with flexibility, to what was agreed some time ago, bearing in mind that what was agreed was that we would work towards getting to clause 48. We are, indeed, still just on clause 30.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

Further to that point of order, Sir Alan. The Minister has just emphasised my need to make a point of order. That timetable was not discussed at the Programming Sub-Committee, and nor was it agreed to. In fact, we said the opposite: we asked for it to be very clear that we were not agreeing to the timetable set out by the Government Whip. My hon. Friend the Member for Easington asked for clarification of its status, and we were told that it is advisory. We also made it very clear that we did not agree to it and we did not consider it a formal part of the business of the Programming Sub-Committee. The Government responded by saying that they were not putting down knives, which we now seem to have before us. The reason for my point of order has been clarified.

Housing and Planning Bill (Fifth sitting)

Debate between Brandon Lewis and Roberta Blackman-Woods

Thursday 19th November 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

Putting in place the design panels was a step in the right direction. However, what guarantee is there that the starter homes will be built using those templates or even better ones outlined by the local authority?

[Brandon Lewis]

Again, this is one of the differences between the Government and the Opposition: we trust local people and local authorities to do the right thing for their local communities. That is what decentralisation is truly about.

Starter homes are a new product, designed to serve a pressing need. We have set out the key parameters: a starter home is available to first-time buyers under 40, at a minimum discount of 20% of market value, and subject to a price cap. A starter home is a new build property or a new conversion.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon is absolutely right; amendment 61 would replace the minimum 20% discount on the open market value with affordability criteria based on average local household income. Affordability would be determined by the local authority. Much was said on Second Reading about the affordability of starter homes. Research on affordability by Shelter was based on median house prices in each region, but I challenge whether first-time buyers actually access the market at the average house price.

The hon. Member for City of Durham made a point about the timelines and how the mortgage companies work. We work with and talk to developers and hear what they say. We will do the same with mortgage companies, which I have met, including the Council of Mortgage Lenders. If we apply the discount in perpetuity, we are in effect asking the lender to give a 100% mortgage, because the market value is not realisable. That simply does not fit with what we are looking to do. There are niche products out there that offer that, and there is a place for them, but I will touch on that in a moment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brandon Lewis]

We will look at the regulations when we come to them, and I am willing to look at any recommendations people make, but I would be cautious about restricting people from buying their first home in whatever manner is right for them.

A starter home is a new product to give young people a permanent place on the property ladder. I want to ensure that we support all first-time buyers and supply enough homes for them all as we go. I might be some years from my economics degree but the basics of supply and demand still sit large in my mind. If we can drive up supply, we will make prices more affordable and more achievable for all. The 20% discount plays an important part in that. Both of the amendments would make starter homes something very different from what we promised in our manifesto, for which we have a mandate from the people of this country. The amendments would remove the benefits of starter homes for the young people whom we are trying to help. I hope the hon. Member for City of Durham supports our proposals to help young, first-time buyers, and withdraws the amendment.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

Once again, I am somewhat disappointed by the Minister’s comments. Amendment 61 seeks to place affordability at a level that is genuinely affordable in all areas of the country, and to give local authorities a key role in setting that affordability. How we can be seen as anti-localist is a bit beyond me. The Government are the anti-localist ones. Given how strongly we feel about starter homes being affordable right throughout the country, we will press amendment 61 to a vote.

On amendment 67, the Minister knows that lots of people are raising issues about the degree of the restrictions and how long they will be. I accept that some of the detail will be in the regulations. We are probably all slightly alarmed to hear that people who already have substantial amounts of cash and therefore, presumably, could put down quite a large deposit on a property will be able to benefit from the scheme. I am not sure why that would be the case.

[Brandon Lewis]

The reason I would be cautious on the point made by the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead is that that could encourage gaming. It could encourage people to go and get a mortgage who do not necessarily otherwise need to, and therefore it would not deal with the problem. The only way to deal with the outlier that I think the hon. Member for City of Durham is trying to identify is means-testing, which, in and of itself, is not something that I would support. We want to supply homes for new first-time buyers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

This is the second time that the Minister has said that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) is not here. He is a member of the shadow Cabinet, and it is not normal practice for members of the Cabinet or the shadow Cabinet to lead a Bill in Committee.

[Brandon Lewis]

I appreciate that qualification, but the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne obviously differs with the previous shadow Minister for Housing and Planning, who was also a member of the shadow Cabinet but, as I recall, attended Public Bill Committees, and certainly attended Delegated Legislation and Statutory Instrument Committees.

I note that the hon. Member for City of Durham did not move away from the right hon. Gentleman’s comment that it is not a bad thing that home ownership has been falling since 2005. The Government are determined to change that. We want to ensure that the 86% of our population who aspire to own their own home, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble mentioned this morning, have a chance to do just that, which is also why we should not be placing restrictions—either geographic restrictions or arbitrary income restrictions—on home ownership solutions for people under the age of 40. This is a problem that faces an entire generation, and it would be wrong to say that some people cannot benefit simply because they are either hard-working or happen to live in a particular geographic area.

Amendment 62 would introduce a buy-to-let restriction into the legislation. We do not want starter homes to be investment opportunities for buy-to-let landlords. We agree on that. We want them to be homes for people to live in, and that is why we have included in the Bill the ability for the Secretary of State to set out letting restrictions in secondary legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I know the Mayor of London has made that submission. Indeed, it was partly as a result of his intervention in the discussion that I thought he might find it extremely helpful for me to include him in the amendments. Consultation about price caps and so on would have to take place not only with local authorities, but with the Mayor of London. Of course, it again begs the question of what will happen when we get greater devolution, because we will have a mayor for Manchester and a mayor for Liverpool. Is the Minister saying that, even though they will be directly elected mayors who have responsibility for housing in their area, their views about what the price cap should be or who should be defined as in need of a starter home will not be heard, and that the decisions will be whipped away from them and given to the Secretary of State without any opportunity whatever for the mayors to have a say in the process?

Given the advance of time, I will not go through the many examples of people who made representations to the Committee that we need to amend the power given to the Secretary of State to limit that to a smaller range of circumstances. If he is carrying out those responsibilities, we need amendments in the Bill or in regulations to say that that can happen only in consultation with local authorities or mayors and—this is a critical point—with the agreement of local councils or mayors, because they are the people who know best what is needed in their areas.

[Brandon Lewis]

Let me respond to both amendments by saying up front that I do not think that a statutory requirement to consult local government on the regulations that underpin the starter homes statutory framework is necessary. As Opposition Members know, statutory consultation requirements, even with the best of intentions, can create unnecessary delays and undue bureaucracy and undermine delivery. We need to get on with building the 200,000 starter homes that this country needs. I do not want house building to be paused because every time we need to make changes to the regulations, we have to consult and wait first. That would be unfair to developers, landowners and, most importantly, this generation of first-time buyers.

When having such debates, I find it ironic, as I did in the last Parliament, to hear Opposition Members talk about centralisation. As somebody who was a councillor, like the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, in a council under a Labour Government, I know absolutely what centralisation feels like. The Bill moves more power, again, to local people and we will come to much of that later in the Bill.

Amendment 66 will require the Secretary of State to consult the Mayor and local authorities on changes to the maximum price cap for starter homes in clause 2. We are introducing a price cap for starter homes of £250,000—£450,000 in London—to ensure that our reforms are not abused. It is important that starter homes remain within the reach of the average first-time buyer. Earlier today, we outlined what the realistic price of those lower-level affordable homes can be. However, the cap is not an expectation of the going price for a starter home. We have aligned it with the maximum threshold for the Help to Buy ISA to ensure consistency for first-time buyers. It is meant to withstand the passage of time so that developers, lenders and other interested parties all have certainty over the medium term.

In many areas of the country, I expect that the price will be significantly below the cap because developers know that starter homes are being exclusively built for young first-time buyers who are looking to get their first step on to the property ladder, and will price their homes accordingly. We noted that in the evidence session last week, where I was able to outline some ideas for prices in my constituency, as did other Members. We touched on that earlier today.

We will want the cap to be set at a level that will allow for flexibility in the type and size of housing delivered, whether in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Burton, where a two-bedroom home is below £100,000 in a new build, or elsewhere. We are looking to ensure that the majority of starter homes are not created to be small units, perhaps not suitable for a young family, which is what a lower cap may mean. It could also result in the potential for some individuals to gain an unreasonable uplift in value when they sell on the open market.

I believe that it is right for the cap to be set nationally rather than locally. We need to ensure consistency with other Government products and provide a very clear product for developers and lenders. I accept, however, that there will be regional differences, which is why we have taken powers to amend the cap through regulations. I can assure hon. Members that we understand the need to have a cap that works fairly and clearly and we will want to engage with developers, lenders and local planning authorities if we decide to change the price caps in future. I am sympathetic to the points raised by the hon. Lady on working with local government to ensure that the proposals are responsive and reflective. I will look at that in the weeks ahead, before Report. In response to a direct question from the hon. Lady, the regulations for the price cap will be affirmative regulations.

Amendment 72 would require the Secretary of State to consult on the regulations that underpin the starter homes requirement on reasonably sized sites in clause 4, where different provisions are made for different areas. My Department will publish a technical consultation shortly on the details of the requirement to inform the preparation of the regulations. A key part of that consultation will be to seek views on the percentage of starter homes that would be expected on reasonably sized developments. I do not want to prejudge that technical consultation now, but I am clear that a one-size-fits-all approach to setting a regulation with a blanket requirement that blindly applies to all housing sites from Brighton to Berwick-upon-Tweed and all points in between, irrespective of local circumstances, will not work. The needs of Great Yarmouth are not the same as those of the south-west and Cornwall. That is why clause 4 gives the Secretary of State the power to set different requirements in different areas.

Equally, I do not expect the requirements to be set by an official sitting at a desk in Whitehall without any regard to local circumstances. I see the provision of starter homes as a joint endeavour, with central Government working closely with local government to deliver the starter homes our young people need and want, and which we should provide.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brandon Lewis]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point about the importance of the devolution deals and the fact that they are about moving more and more power in decision making to the local level. However, devolution is not just about moving power from central Government to local government; it is about moving power into the hands of local people. Again, we will touch on some of those issues later in the Bill when we discuss driving neighbourhood planning further. The technical consultation that we will launch will give all local authorities, and indeed other partners, a chance to feed in their views. I will certainly seek to engage further with key partners on the details. With those points in mind, I hope hon. Members withdraw their amendment.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

We are making some progress this afternoon; that was another largely helpful response. It is such an important matter of principle for us that devolution should be meaningful, and that local authorities should be given a real say. I was tempted to divide the Committee on this set of amendments, but having heard the Minister’s response and bearing in mind that we await the technical consultation, which might have some of the details and further information about what will be in the regulations, which will be affirmative regulations, we will simply make the point to the Minister, for the time being, that we want a degree of local engagement. If that is reflected in what he introduces, it will be a good thing and will extend the devolution agenda. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

General duty to promote supply of starter homes

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Stephen Hammond]

I will make a short contribution on clause 3, in the attempt to find friendship with my colleagues. In his earlier remarks, the Minister clearly recognised the aspiration in 86% of people to own their own home. I rise to put on record a point that I have made to him in private. London is a city of 8.6 million. Most recent growth has been in the 25 to 35-year-old age group, and most of the predicted growth over the next 10 years will be in that same age group. As a London MP, I put on record my unreserved support for the Government’s desire for more people to own their own homes, and my complete support for starter homes. It is also important to put on record the fact that in numerous discussions, the Mayor, the deputy Mayor and the Mayor’s office have unreservedly supported the addition of starter homes to the Bill.

The Mayor occasionally uses jovial remarks to make his point. If he were standing here today, he might make the jovial remark of the great Peter Cook and Dudley Moore about “not only, but also”. His point would be that not only should there be a duty to promote starter homes, but the Government should also consider a slightly wider point. The Minister will recognise the number of intermediate products there are in London, mainly coming through the Mayor’s First Steps scheme. The Mayor is justifiably proud at seeing 52,000 Londoners helped into homes since 2008, which is a record and an achievement to be proud of.

For many people, the shared ownership route has been a route to home ownership and there have been a wide range of providers and indeed funders of that route. Therefore, the key is not only to boost starter homes and home ownership but to recognise that there should not have to be a choice between starter homes and other forms of low-cost home ownership, because both London and the rest of the UK need both. I hope that the Minister will accept that point.

[Brandon Lewis]

I will touch briefly on that point. This clause will require all planning authorities in England, which for these purposes includes the Secretary of State, to promote the supply of starter homes when carrying out relevant planning functions. These functions include, for instance, preparing local plans, co-operating with neighbouring areas on strategic planning matters, and determining planning applications. The clause will apply to the Secretary of State, for example, when he determines called-in planning applications or recovered appeals.

This duty will mean that English planning authorities have a legal requirement to promote the supply of starter homes in their area to assist with their delivery and will ensure that starter homes are embedded within the statutory planning framework. However, as we outlined earlier, my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon makes a powerful point, not just in reconfirming the full support of the Mayor and his office for starter homes but in pointing out that these homes are an additional product. Yes, we are focused on wanting to see home ownership go up, but we are also focused on seeing housing supply continue to increase, and shared ownership is an important part of the toolkit that local authorities, developers and we in Government have to ensure that we drive that agenda of housing supply increases and home ownership increases over the next few years. I know that the Mayor’s office will be key, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) has already outlined his determination to continue to see shared ownership grow, while also ensuring that we deliver this priority of seeing starter homes for first-time buyers.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4

Planning permission: provision of starter homes

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I beg to move amendment 71, in clause 4, page 3, line 15, at end of line insert—

“(5A) The regulations may provide that sites can be exempted from the requirement to promote starter homes where a site has a scheme that—

(a) is a “build to rent” scheme;

(b) contains supported housing for younger people, older people, people with special needs and people with disabilities;

(c) contains a homeless hostel;

(d) contains refuge accommodation; or

(e) contains specialist housing.”

The amendment would remove sites from the starter homes requirement where other types of affordable housing have already been planned for.

The amendment would alter clause 4, so that sites could be exempted from the requirement to promote starter homes where they are delivering a scheme that is either a build-to-rent scheme or one that contains supported housing—for younger people, older people, people with special needs or people with disabilities—or where it contains a homeless hostel, refuge accommodation or other forms of specialist housing. In a sense, this amendment is returning, albeit in a much more specific way, to the theme that we have already rehearsed a few times today, which is whether the starter homes requirement will crowd out other forms of housing that might be needed in a local area.

Clearly, anybody who is providing supported housing for older people or younger people, or specialist housing for people with particular needs or disabilities, is already discharging a very important function for society and for the local community in building and funding that type of accommodation. We just wonder whether there would be huge viability issues for sites if they are trying to build specialist accommodation, for example bungalows that are accessible for people with disabilities or for older people, or if the local authority wants specialist or supported accommodation for younger people or for people fleeing domestic or other forms of violence as part of a planning gain.

This is a genuine concern. The Minister will know that a number of different organisations are terribly worried about the fact that, for example, women’s refuges are suffering dreadfully from cuts to local government funding. They have urged the Government,

“to take a step towards securing the long-term future of the network of specialist accommodative domestic violence services. It is essential this money is spent properly”,

so that refuges and the provision of refuges do not suffer because of the requirement.

Since 2009-10, there has been a huge rise—I gave the figures earlier—of 26% in the number of people who are homeless. This is a truly shocking picture, as is the rise in the number of people who are sleeping rough. My question to the Minister is, is it not just as important that a new development contains, or funds, a homeless hostel or specialist and supported accommodation for people with specific difficulties and issues? That set of needs should not be overridden by the desire for starter homes. The issue is probably one of viability, which is why we need to hear from the Minister in some detail about how section 106 agreements for this type of accommodation will be forthcoming when there will also be discounts for the starter homes initiative, and there may be CIL contributions for infrastructure and section 106 agreements to meet other needs.

We are hearing from a lot of developers—the Minister must be hearing this too—that the finances are simply not going to stack up. There will simply not be enough uplift in the land values across the country to be able to ensure that the sorts of schemes mentioned in the amendment come forward through section 106 agreements. Is it the Minister’s intention that hostels and supported housing for young people, and specialist accommodation for people with disabilities will be funded in another way? Will he guarantee that funding is available, so that there is no shortage of refuge places for women fleeing domestic violence or of supported housing places for young people? If so, that would be extraordinary because there is a huge shortage of those places at the moment. Indeed, local authorities are already finding it difficult to secure the accommodation needed to support young people.

The Minister seems to be incredibly interested in Durham. I will go and do a bit of work on Durham’s budget and bring a bit of reality to the Committee about what Durham local authority is experiencing. It simply does not have the means to provide supported accommodation to young people in my constituency. It is a really desperate and growing need.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brandon Lewis]

The hon. Gentleman’s authority might want to have a look at how much money it has got to set aside, that he says it wants to use but it cannot. Setting money aside for something you can never spend it on does not seem a very sensible thing to do. What the authority should be doing is looking at the reserves it has. Councils should have reserves that are appropriate, but the reserves that are ring-fenced to be spent on something, particularly if it is about providing ability and viability for new homes, I would encourage them to get on with that process.

As we all know, young people today are struggling to do something their parents and many of us took for granted: buy a home of their own. Since the early 1990s, the proportion of under-40s who are homeowners in England has declined by over a third. That is why the Government made a manifesto commitment to provide 200,000 starter homes by 2020. Meeting that commitment will require starter homes to be delivered on most conventional housing sites. We will set out the proportion of starter homes that we expect to be delivered on each site in regulations, and my Department will bring forward proposals in a technical consultation to be launched soon. A key part of that consultation will be seeking views on what sorts of exemption to the requirement should be allowed, and I do not want to prejudge the outcome of it.

I have sympathy with some of the points the hon. Lady made. I recognise that there will be some specialist housing where it would be inappropriate to require starter homes to be an integral part of the development, given design, property management and investment needs, so there will need to be exemptions to the requirement. Her amendment gives some examples that I sympathise with, such as purpose-built build to rent developments, which I have strongly encouraged—I will continue to encourage such institutional investment in our property market—where the financing model requires 100% rental, to provide certainty to investors. For those developments, we will have an issue not with the financial viability but the appropriateness on the particular site, so commuted off-site contributions may be more appropriate.

There are other forms of specialist housing—for example, accommodation for workers; the list goes on—that are not mentioned. That is why I want to consult on the detail and not rush into making a decision today. I do not think it is appropriate to take that decision before we have finished the consultation. With that in mind, I hope the hon. Lady will withdraw her amendment.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

We seem to be on a roll here, so I shall continue. I shall take the Minister at his word and assume that further down the line we will see more detail about the sites that will be exempted and the circumstances under which they will be exempt. His response was helpful, so on that basis I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5

Monitoring

--- Later in debate ---

[Brandon Lewis]

Clause 5 requires English local planning authorities to prepare reports about the actions that they have taken under the starter homes duties in chapter 1 of the Bill. The Government’s current proposals strike the right balance—they give communities the information that they need and, essentially, avoid creating an overly bureaucratic process. I am absolutely clear that local communities, particularly first-time buyers, must be aware of the action that their local planning authority is taking to promote the supply of starter homes and the clause will deliver that as it stands.

Amendment 73 would require local planning authorities to report annually and to publish those reports on their websites. Clause 5(4) already provides that an authority must make its reports under this section available to the public. The clause also provides that the Secretary of State may make regulations about the timing of the reports and whether they should be combined with the local authority’s authority monitoring report, which must already be published at least on an annual basis. We do not want to introduce unnecessary burdens, and it would be sensible to combine reporting with the existing requirement.

Amendment 74 would require local planning authorities to report on their functions in respect of affordable housing as well as starter homes. Local planning authorities are already required to do that. They must report on the extent to which their planning policies are being achieved through their authority monitoring reports. That is a statutory requirement in regulation 34 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012, which includes a specific requirement for a local planning authority to report on its affordable housing delivery performance against adopted planning policies. Both amendments 73 and 74 are therefore unnecessary and are already covered by the current legal framework.

Amendment 75 would require local planning authorities to report on the number of starter homes that remain to be sold at 20% below market value. Clause 2 provides that the Secretary of State can place restrictions through regulations on the sale and letting of starter homes, as we discussed earlier. Such restrictions on the sale or letting of a starter home at open-market value are likely to be for a period of five years. Starter homes will not be restricted in perpetuity as long-term restrictions make it more difficult for the first-time buyer to sell and move up to a larger home as their family needs change and grow. We want people to have a permanent place in the property market that evolves to suit their needs.

Therefore, amendment 75 does not reflect our central proposal for a starter home and reporting on the requirement would cause confusion. It is essential that we have a consistent set of scheme rules so that builders, lenders and, importantly, first-time buyers all have the same expectations of a starter home wherever and whoever they are. That will help to deliver on our manifesto commitment of building 200,000 starter homes over the course of this Parliament.

Amendment 76 would require all local planning authorities to report in detail about the appropriateness of all sites where starter homes are proposed. In particular, it asks local authorities to demonstrate that the sites were not otherwise needed for employment, retail, leisure, industrial or distribution use. The burden would fall on starter homes proposed on exception sites, as they use land that has not been previously allocated for housing. We see exception sites as playing a crucial part in delivering starter homes by providing communities with a stock of new and cheaper land that can be used to build the housing they desperately need. Because the land tends to have a lower value, it helps to improve the viability of starter home developments.

Let me be clear: this is not about building houses at the expense of all other types of use; it is about releasing land where there is no reasonable prospect of its being used for its original purpose. If there is a disused former garage site in a town, surely we all want it to be used to build new housing rather than sit there disused. We expect local authorities to be proactive in identifying and publicising exception sites. Where applications for starter homes are made, local authorities must be prepared to give planning permission. The intention behind the new duty to promote starter homes in clause 3 is to encourage local authorities to do just that.

Before local authorities grant permission, they will need to assure themselves that the brownfield land is an exception site and, in particular, that it is underused and unviable in its current land use. I believe that local authorities are capable of taking that decision without the Government’s looking over their shoulder. For that reason, I think that amendment 76, which would require all local planning authorities to report in detail about the appropriateness of sites, is unnecessary and overly bureaucratic.

I return to what I said at the start. What matters in terms of reporting is that people have the information they need about the number of applications for starter homes that have been made and how many have got permission, and we should not create a burdensome reporting system to check every decision a local authority takes. I believe that the clause as drafted provides that information. With that assurance, I hope the hon. Lady will withdraw the amendments.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I think our roll has come to a shuddering standstill.

We tabled the amendments largely as probing amendments because there is so little information in the Bill about how the monitoring will be carried out. Although it says that reports will be available to the public, it does not say how they will be made available, how often they will be available, in what form they will be published and whether they will be on authorities’ websites. The Bill gives the Secretary of State powers to outline the reports’ form, content, timing and so on.

Presumably, at some point we are going to see a set of regulations. Perhaps we will have to postpone some of the detail of this discussion until we see that. Our plea to the Minister is that he makes the information readily available to people. It should probably be made available on an authority’s website because that is how most people access information these days—not everyone, but most people. It needs to be available in other ways too, and it needs to be put in context. With that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6

Compliance directions

[Helen Hayes]

I beg to move amendment 78, in clause 6, page 4, line 10, at end insert—

‘(6) Before issuing a compliance direction, the Secretary of State must take account of any local housing and planning documents based on an assessment of local housing needs.”

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alan. There is a long-established principle that both planning policy and planning application decisions should be taken within a national framework in the context of considering local need. The coalition Government prioritised localism through neighbourhood planning and objectively assessing housing need. The Bill imposes a new obligation on councils in relation to starter homes, with absolutely no regard to objectively assessed local need. The new obligations do not cover other forms of affordable housing.

The Minister said a number of times that he sees starter homes as part of the mix. The Opposition support that, but it does not make sense, in that context, that such strong duties are being imposed on local authorities, in relation to starter homes, with no comparable measures to protect any other form of housing. Local need varies dramatically across the country. In each of my two boroughs, 20,000 people are on the waiting list for a council home. We have heard witness after witness query the lack of local discretion in the Bill for individual local authorities, and that is what the amendment would address.

Turning to some of the evidence we have received, the respected voluntary sector organisations Shelter and Crisis said that in most parts of the country, lower-income households would not be able to afford starter homes. They said that starter homes will primarily help couples without children and those on average or above-average salaries. They will be inaccessible to families on or below the Government’s national living wage in all but 2% of council areas. For single people on average wages or lower, only six local authority areas will have affordable starter homes.

The Home Builders Federation states:

“There is potential for market distortion if the numbers of Starter Homes that ministers are targeting to be built actually come onto the market. The effect is likely to be highly localised and could impact upon the saleability of units on new sites”.

The Royal Town Planning Institute states:

“Now not only is social rent and shared ownership potentially driven out and replaced by starter homes up to £250,000 in price, but this appears to be obligatory and not open to local negotiation. This lack of discretion may affect delivery.”

PlaceShapers states that it supports measures to increase home ownership

“but do not believe that this should be at the expense of those who also aspire to get on in life but are unable to afford to buy a home of their own.”

It believes that it should be left to the relevant planning authority to make decisions as to the mix of new homes.

All those comments are from respected organisations across a range of sectors saying that there is a need for more local discretion. The amendment would give local authorities a necessary safeguard by requiring the Secretary of State to take account of local need before issuing a compliance direction. That would help to ensure that the Government and the local authority are considering the same housing needs assessment and would give a safeguard that all types of tenure—the Minister says that he believes in all types of tenure—can be supported.

If local needs are overridden by the Government, the consequences will be serious. A reduction in the supply of homes for those on lower incomes risks exacerbating unaffordability and increasing the housing benefit bill. Combined with the housing benefit cap and the lack of regulation in the private rented sector, it will lead to an increase in homelessness. London already houses 49,000 households in temporary accommodation at considerable cost to the public purse. Without the amendment, which would create a safeguard that local needs would be considered, there is a considerable risk that the Bill will deliver new homes while ignoring the needs of those with the greatest housing need. That will make the housing crisis worse and cost the public sector more.

Without the amendment, there is also a significant democratic deficit. In London, borough planners have to take account not only of their local plans, but the London plan. All of that can be trumped by the new national-level requirement that is not subject to examination through a local plan process. How can the Minister be sure that Whitehall will know what is best in each locality and housing development? I do not think that he can. The amendment simply seeks to ensure that the new homes that are delivered, whether they are to rent or to buy, meet local needs.

The Minister has stated that the mix of tenures, among other things, will continue to be a negotiation between the developer and the local authority. If he is not willing to support the amendment, will he please explain how that will be the case? How is the Bill compatible with localism? How will the Bill not result in a reduction in the social housing provided for those in the greatest housing need?

Housing and Planning Bill (Fourth sitting)

Debate between Brandon Lewis and Roberta Blackman-Woods

Thursday 19th November 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Brandon Lewis]

Perhaps I may clarify something. What the hon. Lady said is not quite what the Mayor of London said. He is entirely supportive of starter homes and that is clear from the record.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I know that the Mayor’s office has made positive comments about encouraging starter homes. However, the Mayor has also said that he is—or at least people in his office have said that they are—concerned about how the Bill will be implemented, and about powers that will be given to the Mayor to prevent damage to other products that he already makes available. The Opposition have been explaining that there is considerable concern about the possibility that the clauses will crowd out other useful products that exist to support people into home ownership.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

Well, on the basis of the point made by my hon. Friend, let us wait and see whether that proves to be the case.

In conclusion, I am looking forward to hearing what the Minister says about ensuring that starter homes are an addition to all other types of homes to encourage people into home ownership and across all other tenures, and his answers to our question about why the Bill does not include measures to ensure that that is the case.

[Brandon Lewis]

I shall keep my comments relatively brief, because I know the Committee is keen to ensure that we finish at least clause 1 before we break at 1 o’clock. We have just spent 45 minutes discussing the first of two amendments to clause 1, a one-line clause. I draw hon. Members’ attention to what clause 1 does: it simply explains what the chapter is about. It states:

“The purpose of this Chapter is to promote the supply of starter homes in England.”

I appreciate that the hon. Lady was having a wider discussion about the housing market more generally, but I will try to deal with the points about the one line of the clause.

As has been said, we should be proud of our record in both the previous Parliament, as a coalition, Conservative-led Government, and this Parliament. We delivered more council homes in five years than the previous Labour Government delivered in 13. In fact, under the Labour Government, the number of affordable homes dropped by 420,000, whereas in five years we increased the number of affordable homes. The hon. Lady outlined what we are doing across all tenures.

Let me focus on the questions that link to this one-line clause. Clause 1 outlines that the purpose of this chapter on starter homes,

“is to promote the supply of starter homes in England.”

Amendment 59 would change the purpose of the chapter to promote the supply of,

“new homes across all tenures”.

The Government are totally committed to increasing housing supply across all tenures. In fact—the hon. Lady and other hon. Members will appreciate this—we do not need legislation to do everything we want and need to do. We should not use legislation to increase housing supply where we do not need to do so. We have got our affordable housing guarantees; the guarantees scheme, with billions of pounds coming through for the private rented sector; the voluntary deal with housing associations, which the chief executive of the National Housing Federation confirmed will increase housing supply; the Help to Buy scheme; the builders finance fund; the planning changes we have made, some of which we will discuss later in this Committee; the fact that we increased local authorities’ headroom to enable them to borrow more—there is still £2 billion-worth of headroom, so local authorities can go further with building—and the work we are doing on custom build. I could go on, but I will stick to the one-line clause that we are discussing.

More than 608,000 new homes have been built since April 2010. That means there are now 795,000 more homes in England than there were in 2009, but we must go further—on that we agree. Housing starts in England are at their highest annual level since 2007. I am proud of that, but we need to go further. In the year to 31 March 2015, the reformed planning system gave planning permission for 261,000 new homes—up more than 64% on the year to March 2010. Starts on new homes in the year to June 2015 totalled 136,320 homes, compared with about 75,000 in the year to 2009. The hon. Lady’s boss, the shadow Housing Minister, is not sitting on the Committee, but when he was Minister he oversaw the lowest levels of house building since about 1923—75,000, 88,000 and 95,000. It is now back up to more than 136,000, but we need to go further.

There were more than 131,000 housing completions in the year to June 2015—15% up on the previous year. That is good; we are on the right trajectory, but we need to go further. We want to do more. The clauses are about something new, something additional—a new approach to addressing the pressing problem of young people and home ownership. We cannot rely on failed past models of housing delivery that, in and of themselves, have not delivered enough. Planning is part of that. If we are to address the current difficulties we need to innovate, and starter homes are innovative.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brandon Lewis]

As I said on Tuesday, I am absolutely confident that we will be delivering 200,000 starter homes in this Parliament. It was a manifesto pledge and it is one purpose of the clause. The Bill goes way beyond that and we are doing other things on housing supply, not all of which need legislation, but we are certainly looking to deliver 200,000 starter homes in this Parliament.

The clause sets out our position clearly. Legislation is required to increase the number of starter homes available for young people to buy, and to prevent the percentage of homeowners under 40 slipping further. We need a radical shift in how the housing market supports young first-time buyers; otherwise, we will condemn a whole generation to uncertainty and insecurity. Starter homes are part of that radical shift and I am determined to ensure that, by the end of the Parliament, many more people will have a home of their own, delivered through our reforms. I hope that, with that assurance, the hon. Member for City of Durham will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

What I would say to the Minister is, on total net supply of housing, even on the Department’s best figures and with some drastic measures to increase supply, such as office-to-residential, that are not likely to continue for too long, we are still delivering 60,000-plus units less than a decade ago. I would have thought it was important to put it in the Bill that the Government want to increase supply across all tenures, because that would be a clear signal to the people with concerns out there to show that starter homes will genuinely be in addition to all other forms of housing to be delivered and not instead of them. I am therefore not certain why the Minister, especially if he is doing all these amazing things across all types of tenure, does not want that recognised in the Bill. Perhaps we will ponder that issue. No doubt we will bring it back again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brandon Lewis]

I entirely disagree with the hon. Lady’s point about developers and what they are saying about the planning system. I am pleased that the changes that we have made over the last few years have been welcomed by the building industry, but there is a still a view that the planning system is too slow. Part of what we will debate over the next few weeks is how to go further in speeding up and simplifying that process and ensure that local people’s voices are more loudly heard. We will debate that later.

Equally, in many cases, local authorities sign planning performance agreements with developers in order to ensure that they get the level of support and work that they want. Given that local authorities, as we have seen today, now have reserves rising from £13 billion to £22 billion, they should consider carefully how to finance and resource their planning departments, which should absolutely be at the heart of local authorities.

Amendment 60 would amend clause 1 to refer explicitly to the infrastructure needed for starter homes. To respond to the hon. Lady’s opening remarks and to the last intervention during debate on the previous amendment, this chapter of the Bill is entitled “Starter Homes”. It is about starter homes, a new product that we are adding to the mix. Let me be clear: nothing that we are doing to promote starter homes will fundamentally change the importance of having good infrastructure in place to support new developments. We are one on that. We as a Government strongly believe that new housing developments must be supported by improvements in local infrastructure, from better roads to new schools and doctors’ surgeries to more parks and open spaces, and good design to create communities.

Our manifesto clearly stated:

“When new homes are granted planning permission, we will make sure local communities know up-front that necessary infrastructure such as schools and roads will be provided.”

We particularly want local authorities and infrastructure providers to plan positively for the broader infrastructure needs of their area as part of local plan making. Our starter homes reforms will not change that. Yes, we will exempt all starter homes from the community infrastructure levy. We will lay the draft regulations shortly, and I appreciate that the House will have an opportunity to debate them soon, but I say gently to the hon. Lady that there is a discount of at least 20% on starter homes, which is funded in part by the reduction of the community infrastructure levy. If she is saying that it should still be levied, where does she think the extra funding will come from?

Affordable housing is already exempt from the levy, so the impact of the reform on local infrastructure financing will be much less than many might imagine. Furthermore, planning decisions for all developments, including those that contain starter homes, will still need to be made in accordance with local planning policy, subject to the starter homes requirement and other material considerations.

Infrastructure considerations will be an important part of consideration for any substantive development. In particular, local planning authorities will still be able to secure section 106 contributions for site-specific infrastructure improvements required for the development, including new roads or financial contributions to local schools. Accordingly, this explanatory amendment to clause 1 is not necessary, as infrastructure considerations will continue to be an important factor for developments with starter homes. With those points in mind, I hope that hon. Members will withdraw the amendment.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I am very, very disappointed that the Minister did not take the opportunity that I provided for him to reassure the Committee and the many people who gave evidence that the Government had clearly thought through how infrastructure would be provided to support these new developments and, critically, how it would be paid for.

The specific point I put to him was not whether the community infrastructure levy should or should not apply to the element of starter homes in new developments; I did not comment at all on that. I simply pointed out that some of the councils that will have to operate the system were very unclear about how the gap in funding would be addressed. Milton Keynes is a good example, in that it pointed out that on an average-sized development the council could be £80,000 short of providing necessary school places to support that development.

If the Minister and the Government are promoting these new homes, it is important that they have thought through clearly how the infrastructure to support them will be provided. It is also important that they seek to reassure us and answer the questions we have directly raised. As I said, I am very disappointed. Bearing in mind the large number of witnesses who identified concerns about this issue in their evidence to the Committee, I hope that the Minister and his officials, even if they do not want to pay attention to the matters we are raising, might pay attention to the matters that developers and others are raising.

[Brandon Lewis]

Actually, developers have welcomed starter homes and explained that they are potentially a huge opportunity to increase housing supply. The National Housing Federation also backed that up. If the hon. Lady reads through Hansard, she will see that I explicitly outlined the infrastructure point, both in terms of CIL and more widely, and in site-specific section 106 agreements.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I was just coming to that. As the Minister has made an intervention, perhaps he could make another helpful one, to show that section 106 agreements will apply to the whole site, including counting the number of homes provided for starter homes.

[Brandon Lewis]

I again ask the hon. Lady to read Hansard, because it will tell her exactly what I said. I repeat that local planning authorities will still be able to secure section 106 contributions for site-specific infrastructure improvements required for the development, including new roads or financial contributions to local schools.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

As the Minister suggests, I will indeed check Hansard in the next few days. I thank him for his clarification. My point was that I do not think we had an answer to the specific question raised by Milton Keynes Council and others about how the funding shortfall resulting from not applying CIL to a proportion of the development, because of starter homes, will be met.

[Brandon Lewis]

I again draw the hon. Lady’s attention to my words. I made the situation regarding the community infrastructure levy very clear, including the fact that at the moment affordable homes do not get the community infrastructure levy, and therefore there is a negligible difference.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

Nevertheless, CIL will not be applied to the homes that are being built as starter homes. It is important to identify how that shortfall will be met.

[Brandon Lewis]

It is not a question of a shortfall. Affordable homes do not attract the community infrastructure levy now, so that is not a change.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

As the Minister will recognise, these homes have not actually been built and they will, after five years, go on the open market. Therefore, I am not sure he is making a direct like-for-like comparison. In any case, the issue about how the shortfall will be addressed remains. I would like him to reflect on that further and think about how better to reassure the Committee on how infrastructure will be delivered. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Housing and Planning Bill (First sitting)

Debate between Brandon Lewis and Roberta Blackman-Woods

Tuesday 10th November 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Brandon Lewis]

Q 21 From the work you have done looking at this and the opportunities for London in the starter homes brand, do you see that as an opportunity to get an overall increase in the housing supply in London—to push that supply up?

Richard Blakeway: Yes. We see a real role for starter homes within the capital. As I have set out and as you know from our conversations, we expect that to happen alongside other products, such as shared ownership, which can play a different but similar role to promote low cost of ownership in London. We think there is a real opportunity to increase not just the volume, but the proportion of low cost of ownership opportunities in London with a suite of products, including starter homes and shared ownership. What we would like to see is a role for the Mayor of London to co-ordinate that being reflected in the Bill—a change to the Bill to enable that.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

Q 22 How can you be so confident? Have you carried out work on this to know that other affordable housing products will also be delivered alongside starter homes?

Richard Blakeway: I think I have expressed some caution to the extent of saying that some of the issues in relation to starter homes will be set out in the regulations, and that to undertake a full assessment we need to see the regulations. One critical thing is what percentage of starter homes are required on each site—that is a critical issue that will be set out in the regulations. What we have said very clearly, however, is that the quota of starter homes will be applied, but then we would expect that the London plan policy, which seeks to maximise affordable housing, will also be applied afterwards. So the two tests are still applied to schemes.

Prefabricated Housing

Debate between Brandon Lewis and Roberta Blackman-Woods

Wednesday 4th November 2015 Westminster Hall

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I do not think I suggested for a minute that the Labour party would not support these innovations. I was arguing for good-quality design that could be rolled out at scale without repeating any of the problems of the past. I want to make it clear that the Labour party welcomes these innovations.

[Brandon Lewis]

I am pleased that we have managed to elicit that statement, given that we spent eight minutes listening to the hon. Lady list all the things in the industry she is not happy with. If Labour Members spent some time looking at what was going on in the British off-site and advanced construction industry, they would see that there is some phenomenal expertise out there. I am sure the industry will want to explain to them some of the things my hon. Friends and I have heard about through talking with the industry and visiting sites. I will talk more specifically about some of that later.

Today’s debate follows on from Second Reading of the Housing and Planning Bill and the problems we heard about then. The hon. Lady talked about the number of housing starts, but she, rather like the shadow Housing Minister, the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), seemed to forget that there were 75,000 and 88,000 housing starts respectively in the last two years of the Labour Government. That is the inheritance we had to build on, and the industry can play an important part in that. Fortunately, despite what the hon. Lady said—her figures are somewhat out of date—we were back up to 136,000 starts in the last recorded 12 months, which is a big improvement on the disgraceful situation that Labour left, with just 75,000 starts in its last year.

My hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe will be fully aware that, during the recent election campaign, the Conservative party made it clear that increasing home ownership and house building would be a top priority. He was right to highlight the fact that the industry has a big part to play. We have been working on this issue since 2010 and, as I said, we have built the numbers back up, although nobody disagrees that there is still a long way to go. We want to see a lot more happen, and that is where the industry has a large role to play.

The number of first-time buyers has doubled since 2009, so our success in that respect is already apparent, but our ambition, which we are determined to realise, is to go further. A fully functioning and efficient housing market is vital to meeting the aspirations of working people and to raising our country’s productivity. That is why we are committed to encouraging not only home ownership, but increased housing supply, to make sure that we have more good-quality homes that people can afford to buy and that we support all parts of the housing market and all tenures.

The way we do that is equally important. We need to deliver more new, high-quality homes, with well thought out interior design, built quickly and efficiently. As was outlined by my hon. Friend today and earlier this week by my Norfolk neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon), the industry can play a part by linking with custom build to make sure we remember that a house is built for a customer. We need to design homes that are right for the people who will live in them. The Government’s proposals in the Housing and Planning Bill are designed to achieve that.

We want to see innovation in the house building and construction sector. I want us to have a diversified industry —one that does not rely on the same old companies and build in the way we have for the last 50 to 100 years. The way we build homes—traditionally using the larger builders—involves the same techniques that have been used for 50 or, arguably, 150 years. On average, it can take 20 weeks to build a house, should there be—I say this only somewhat tongue in cheek—a good flow of weather. We need to move to a system where homes are built in weeks, if not days.

Innovation and new ways of working are key to the sector’s future. Industry needs to innovate to stay competitive. That applies to the construction of homes as much as to any other field. If the larger developers do not take these types of construction forward in the years ahead, there will come a point—even the chief executives of these companies have said this to me—where they risk being left behind. Competition is good for the industry. Homes in China are being constructed using 3D printers, and they are assembled in a matter of hours. It is suggested that such homes cost about £300 a square metre and it is claimed that they will last for 150 years. That might be a bit beyond where our market is, but it is certainly the kind of innovation that is coming. Such innovations should be a key part of our housing industry. Building the housing we need quickly and cost-effectively, so that people can move in within days of assembly starting, could transform this country’s rate of housing delivery from the 20-plus weeks we see with traditional techniques.

We are talking about modern prefabricated homes, but like others I like to use the phrases “off-site construction” or “advanced construction”. In our recent discussions with industry, we have been referring to advanced housing manufacture. Homes built using such techniques—there is a variety out there—are finally starting to set the benchmark for the latest, cutting-edge designs. They are built in highly controlled factory settings and the parts are assembled precisely and on-site. Advanced housing manufacture can not only deliver high-quality homes, but help to build them quickly and efficiently. The method is now being used widely in advanced economies around the world.

The Government are keen to encourage more innovation in the way we build homes, and we are doing that through our housing programmes. The hon. Member for City of Durham asked what we are doing, so let me outline that. Through our housing zones programme, 30 brownfield sites across the country will be developed using £600 million of public funding, and we are encouraging the use of innovative construction on those sites. As my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe outlined, brownfield sites are often in built-up areas, where small plots and busy streets are a perfect match for advanced techniques. It is good to have debates such as this so that we can highlight some of these points, and I hope people will take note of what is said this morning.

We are also funding innovation through our multibillion pound affordable housing programme. So far, a fifth of the homes in the homes and communities programme after 2015 will be built using innovative construction techniques. Our £1 billion Build to Rent fund is also helping to build 10,000 good-quality homes for private rent. Fifteen schemes to create more than 4,000 new homes are already in contract and more deals are in the pipeline. Again, we are encouraging innovative construction through that programme, and the private rented sector fits that approach perfectly. We are also backing the market with our £150 million Custom Build Serviced Plot Loans fund, which pays for the preparation of shovel-ready sites. Large numbers of custom and self-builders prefer to use off-site construction techniques, because they appreciate the high-quality, sustainable designs and the rapid construction.

Small and medium-sized builders are vital to achieving the higher levels of innovation we all want. We are supporting them through our £525 million Builders Finance fund, which provides loans to unlock small sites, and the £100 million Housing Growth Partnership run by the Lloyds group—we are partnering Lloyds in that—which helps small builders to invest in new projects and to develop their businesses.

The wider Construction 2025 strategy sets ambitious goals for reducing costs and speeding up the delivery of construction projects, as well as encouraging innovation in the sector. We are supporting construction firm Laing O’Rourke to develop its advanced housing manufacturing factory facilities through a £22.1 million grant from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. There is also funding from industry more widely.

The Government are supporting the development of new apprenticeship and training programmes with a focus on off-site construction. Those are being led by industry players such as Laing O’Rourke and Skanska. It is important that we develop skills in the sector. What is beneficial about the programmes is that the skills they develop are different from the skills used in traditional techniques, and they can help with the huge skills shortage we have in the house building industry.

I welcome moves by industry to promote innovation in house building and to point the industry towards the future. I also welcome the opportunities presented by the techniques we are discussing. Last year, Buildoffsite launched its new housing hub to promote the benefits of advanced housing manufacturing. The hub aims to promote knowledge-sharing between clients and suppliers; raise awareness of new techniques; encourage new members; and develop a methodology to demonstrate the value of off-site solutions. The hub is continuing encourage wider take-up of the Buildoffsite property assurance scheme, which aims to give lenders assurance about the quality and durability of homes built using innovative construction methods. As my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe rightly said, the lifespan these construction methods give—in many cases, as I outlined with the China example, it goes way beyond 60 years—makes these homes very viable for mortgage lending. I talk to mortgage lenders regularly about that and other schemes to make sure they are aware of the opportunities.

It is great when innovative schemes are brought forward, and I will describe some that I have seen. The Accord group in Walsall has a scheme providing homes for rent. They are made in a factory and assembled across the road on a housing site, and the staff are people who live in the area. I saw two homes being built in a day—a very impressive rate of building. Even if it was done to show off for “The One Show”, it proved what can be done. Bearing in mind comments made about skills this morning, I found it particularly interesting that of the 17 or 18 staff on that site, all but one of them, I think, had either been unemployed or had no experience of the housing industry before starting work, yet within a couple of weeks they were playing a part in building new homes. That is a good example how this approach can change the skills supply for the industry.

Innovative construction is also being used as part of the Bicester garden town scheme. High-quality energy-efficient homes are being built for rent, shared ownership and sale. I have also visited an off-site construction company in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk, who is in the Chamber this morning; people are even being taught how to build for themselves. That is a great opportunity for young people to learn a skill and to be part of building their own home. It fits perfectly with my hon. Friend’s ambitions for the use of off-site construction in custom and self-build, which he is passionate about.

I recently helped to launch the Y:Cube scheme in Merton, which has been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe and others. Well designed, high-quality homes have been built there, using advanced housing manufacture; and they are being made available for rent to young people in the local area. Those homes offer affordable accommodation for single people who are volunteering or who are in training, education or full or part-time employment. They are well designed, drawing on the creativity of high-quality architects—some of the best we know, such as Rogers Stirk Harbour + Partners. They use new forms of construction to save time and costs.

I have visited a factory in Derbyshire where homes are being manufactured quickly and efficiently, again showing the possibility of a different skill set. The clean indoor environment extends the working life of people in the industry. Some of the units developed there are being used by Urban Splash, which is developing an exciting custom build scheme in Manchester, using off-site construction to enable buyers to customise their homes and create a bespoke solution, tailored to meet their needs. That is exactly the kind of development we want in the housing sector.

At Creekside Wharf in Greenwich, Essential Living is using an innovative modular technique to produce high-quality homes for private rent. All those schemes are just examples demonstrating the benefits that advanced housing manufacture can bring. They are a sample of what is happening: faster construction and good quality design and build, with low energy bills and the creation of jobs and homes. Council and social housing can also reap the benefits, as I have seen from the south Norfolk company that has developed homes for the local authority in Great Yarmouth.

Challenges remain, however, including shaking off stereotypical images of prefabricated housing based on some poor-quality past schemes such as the hon. Member for City of Durham described. We do the industry no justice by making such comparisons. What now exists is different; it is innovative and the quality is high. We need faster and more widespread take-up by a range of industry players who will encourage collaboration between developers and architects and work with communities, home buyers and planners, with the support of lenders. Then we can get things right. We need to build more homes in communities. Buyers, self-builders, renters and communities across the country appreciate homes of high quality and thoughtful design that are affordable and that are built quickly, in the right place. Advanced housing manufacture can achieve, or help to achieve, all that. It has enormous potential to create jobs and growth through a new factory-based industry. I encourage industry to go further with it, and use it more often. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe again on securing such an important debate.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Brandon Lewis and Roberta Blackman-Woods

Monday 29th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. Ministers are talking all the time; the Secretary of State has been very clear about driving the matter forward. He wants all Departments to deliver to ensure that we get to 150,000 homes. I am happy to look at what he suggests. If we can work with the devolved authorities to ensure that residents right across the United Kingdom benefit, I will be happy to do so.

[Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)]

Figures from a recent National Audit Office report showed that the Government were so desperate to inflate their record on the disposal of public land for new homes that they included land released as long ago as 1997 by the Labour Government. Will the Minister tell the House how on earth the Government propose to reach the higher target of 150,000 homes with no one else’s record to plunder?

[Brandon Lewis]

I gently say to the hon. Lady that the programme that I outlined in the previous Parliament consisted of land that was built on or disposed of between 2011 and 2015. We have set an ambitious target of 150,000 homes for this Parliament, which we must reach, and I hope that she will support us in doing that. Let me gently point out to her that I am somewhat prouder of this Government’s record of delivering some 23,000 homes a year through public sector land than I would be of the Labour record of 1,000 homes a year.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Brandon Lewis and Roberta Blackman-Woods

Monday 16th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. It is vital that enforcement is dealt with properly to give people confidence that the planning system will deliver the right results. I will ensure that the Under-Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd) who deals with renewable energy, looks at that case and makes contact with the hon. Gentleman directly.

[Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)]

In 2013, the Minister said to this House about the future of high streets that

“it is also quite right for local authorities to use the powers they have to make sure that their high street or town centre is vital and vibrant for the benefit of their communities.”—[Official Report, 25 November 2013; Vol. 571, c. 7.]

Will he explain, therefore, why he has taken all those powers away?

[Brandon Lewis]

Well, we have not. I encourage local areas not just to take forward business improvement districts, but to take advantage of neighbourhood planning and business-led neighbourhood planning. I have seen that happen in a few parts of the country, including in Milton Keynes, where there has been some excellent work to take forward opportunities to develop the high street in a way that did not happen under the previous Government, as those opportunities just fell away or were ignored.

National Planning Policy Framework

Debate between Brandon Lewis and Roberta Blackman-Woods

Thursday 5th March 2015 Westminster Hall

[The Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Brandon Lewis)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. As many other hon. Members have done, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) on securing the debate. He outlined key issues in our planning reforms and the national planning policy framework. I intend to deal with specific issues that have been raised, as well as talking more generally, and I hope to cover pretty much every point that has been raised. After all, I have plenty of time, and I thank hon. Members for allowing me that freedom.

I am pleased that the underlying message from pretty much every hon. Member who spoke this afternoon is that, putting everything else aside, we all agree that there is a need for more housing. I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds that if we are to deliver more housing, and to be able to continue delivering it in the numbers we want, it is important that those houses are the right ones, designed to a high quality, and built in the right place at the right time.

I am pleased that my hon. Friend and other hon. Members recognise our success in simplifying the planning system. I was a member of the Committee that considered the Localism Act 2011, on which my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) was the Minister, along with the current Minister for Universities, Science and Cities, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark). My hon. Friend outlined superbly the importance of the change that has happened whereby some 7,000-plus pages on planning, including the guidance notes, have been reduced to just 50 pages now. That guidance is recommended to all hon. Members wondering what bedtime reading to choose this evening. We achieved that important simplification.

I always find it interesting—that is the best way I can put it, to be as polite as possible—to hear Opposition Members giving their thoughts about the planning system and pointing out where it does not work. I say that with a wry smile because, having been a councillor for 11 years and a council leader for about half that time, I well remember talking to colleagues across local government—as I do now as a Local Government Minister—about their frustration at years of top-down control. We talked about the people sent from Whitehall in a suit telling them what to build, regardless of whether it was appropriate for them. What happened in that period—apart from the financial crash that so heavily hit the building industry and people’s ability to borrow to buy a home—was that a stranglehold was put on planning. That is partly what led to rates of building, when Labour left power, similar to those of 1923. We have had to rebuild from a rate of 80,000-odd homes a year being built under Labour to the present rate of about 150,000. By 2017, as my hon. Friends have mentioned, we will hit 200,000. I lambast Labour for its lack of ambition in saying that it will do that by 2020. We will hit that kind of figure, on our current trajectory, in 2017.

[Roberta Blackman-Woods]

Will the Minister give way?

[Brandon Lewis]

I want to finish this point. I find it slightly ironic when I hear the hon. Lady talking about how we must link neighbourhood and local planning. In essence that is correct, and I believe in it. However, it comes from a party that was responsible for the top-down system I mentioned, in which there was little local involvement. It is a party whose shadow Secretary of State wrote to district council leaders last summer to outline some of the things he wanted to do; those who read on to the second page will have realised that he was talking about taking power away from district councils, in particular, and moving back to a more regionally based system. If they did not like it, they would just lose their planning power, effectively.

Of course, the leader of the Labour party has made clear his ideas about what will happen when there is an urban area that wants to build, but it neighbours a rural area without the capacity to take on that development. The duty to co-operate does not mean that it can take on that capacity; the development will be forced on the rural area. I struggle to see how any area will accept that as true localism. It simply is not. It is going back to a top-down system of control, under which Labour failed to deliver homes year after year for 13 years.

I have sympathy with what the hon. Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods) said about ancient woodland. I talked to the Woodland Trust last week about the importance of environmental development. When I talk about good-quality development, I want it to be clear that we want trees and nature to be part of the environment. I was pleased to hear recently that Barratt Homes has worked out a deal for a secondment from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, to work with Barratt and make sure that it develops a good environment along with its homes. It is important to move away from the practice of many years of building big housing estates—nice as some are, with lovely homes in them—where there is one area of green in the middle, which, after six months, has a sign saying “No ball games, no children, no looking, no touching.” I say that tongue in cheek, but the reality on some estates is kind of like that. People never get to know their neighbours, because there is no community interaction. An important way to encourage such things is the development of communities where retail space is mixed with residential and commercial space, and with good, usable community space. I am keen for that to happen, as I said earlier this week, in the Ebbsfleet garden city, in Northstowe and in Bicester, which I visited last week to see the development. It is a great way to move forward, and neighbourhood planning can play a part in that.

Hon. Members will appreciate that as a Minister I have a quasi-judicial role in the planning system, so I cannot comment on specific proposals—a couple have been mentioned today—or individual plans. However, I will cover the issues touched on today in more general terms. We all agree, across the parties, on the importance of getting plans in place. They set the framework in which local decisions should and must be made. The Government have returned power in plan making to the local level wherever possible. As I have said and my hon. Friends have mentioned, we revoked the last Administration’s unpopular and undemocratic regional strategies. We have enabled communities to bring forward neighbourhood plans, the most important and exciting development in planning that has happened in this country in decades.

We have reformed local plan making so that inspectors may propose modifications to a plan only if invited to do so by the council. I must be clear about that, given some of the comments that have been made today. Furthermore, the NPPF strongly incentivises plan making, encouraging all councils to engage their communities and put plans in place as soon as possible, and to ensure that those plans are kept up to date. Some of my hon. Friends have given examples of frustrations that they have encountered in putting plans in place. It has been a pleasure to hear my hon. Friends talk about some of the issues in their areas. Cheshire East was mentioned, which I visited in a previous capacity, to attend a public meeting on planning. It was a wonderful experience, as it always is when I visit the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) with her. However, I have to say that Cheshire East is an example of somewhere local people are quite right to be frustrated and irritated at the behaviour of their council and its failure to deliver a local plan.

My hon. Friend touched on the fact that Cheshire East council had the support of a retired inspector whom we sent in to work with it. I wish that the council had listened to the advice so that the plan was in a better place. I understand the frustration of residents, bearing in mind that they can look only next door to another local authority that, in the same time frame, has delivered its plan sound and finished. There is no excuse for Cheshire East’s failure thus far.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Brandon Lewis and Roberta Blackman-Woods

Monday 15th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

That is not how the system works. We do not have top-down targets. We got rid of the regional spatial strategies. It is up to the local authority to work out its housing needs and to look at the evidence base to see what it can provide locally, taking into account any environmental constraints.

[Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)]

The recent designation of Bicester as a garden city brings not a single new home to the table, as Bicester had already planned for and started to build 13,000 new homes as outlined in its local plan. Is it not time that the Government thought seriously about how to deliver our much needed new settlements rather than simply repackaging existing developments?

[Brandon Lewis]

With respect, I think the hon. Lady has missed the point. Bicester itself came forward and wanted to develop on garden city principles. When I was there last week, officials showed me around the excellent work that the local authority is doing to release some of the land, including looking at the infrastructure to see how they can make it possible. We are not following a top-down approach. I appreciate that the Labour party wants to have a suit in Whitehall deciding who builds and where, but we believe in localism. Local areas should lead on garden cities. They should come to us with the outlines of what they want to do. I am talking about local decisions, by local people and for local people.

Illegal Encampments (East of England)

Debate between Brandon Lewis and Roberta Blackman-Woods

Wednesday 26th November 2014 Westminster Hall

[Brandon Lewis]

My hon. Friend makes a strong point. We will feed through some issues he and other hon. Friends have raised to colleagues in the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice.

I shall touch briefly on what we have done to ensure that planning for site provision works more effectively and, importantly, as hon. Members have rightly said, fairly. We removed the top-down regional strategies and plans that caused so much resentment. Our planning policy for Traveller sites puts the provision of sites into the hands of local councils. They have to consult local communities as well as ensure they are protecting the green-belt land and our great countryside.

Local authorities have to identify a suitable five-year supply of Traveller sites to meet their objectively assessed needs in line with national planning policy, so it is very much in their hands. I know the hon. Member for City of Durham did not realise this—I am sure she will read the national planning policy framework soon—but it is in the hands of local authorities, as part of working out what their needs are, to assess what is right and appropriate for them locally.

[Roberta Blackman-Woods]

Will the Minister give way?

[Brandon Lewis]

No, I am just going to finish this point.

We are supporting this process with site provision, funding and financial incentives. We set aside £60 million Traveller pitch funding—the programme is looking to deliver 625 new and 369 refurbished pitches by 2015. There will also be funding for new Traveller pitches through the 2015 to 2018 affordable homes programme. Perhaps Harlow council will do the right thing and look again at that—it claimed it had done so, but clearly had not.

We have become somewhat concerned about the right balance being struck between the need to increase site provision, the interests of the settled community and the protection of the green belt and other sensitive areas. We are considering responses to our consultation, which closed on 23 November. The hon. Lady asked about that. I am sure she will appreciate that we are considering those responses.

The proposals aim to ensure fairness in the planning system while strengthening protections for the green belt and the countryside, and to address the negative effects of unauthorised occupation of land. That is why we propose that Travellers who have settled and permanently stopped travelling should be treated in the same way as any other member of the permanently settled community. Those with genuinely nomadic lifestyles should continue to be treated as Travellers in planning law. That will help to ensure that local authorities, in planning their authorised site provision, are meeting the needs of those who lead a nomadic lifestyle.

We also propose to make it clear in planning policy that intentional unauthorised occupation should be a material consideration that weighs against the granting of any permissions. All applicants should apply through a proper planning process before occupying land, as any other person should do.

Finally, the Government believe it is unfair that a small number of authorities have to plan to meet the site needs of people who ignore planning rules and occupy large unauthorised sites. That discourages councils from taking early enforcement action. Under our proposals, there would be no assumption that local authorities that face that problem, and that are subject to planning constraints in their area, would have to plan to meet their site needs in full.

Unauthorised encampments are a serious local issue, and there are strong powers available to councils and the police to deal with them. Where those powers are used swiftly, we believe they are sufficient, but we are open to representations about how enforcement could be improved. Police and crime commissioners, who are themselves democratically accountable, are in place to hold chief constables to account for their policing decisions. I want the police and police and crime commissioners, and district and county councils, working together to take on and deal with the problem of unauthorised encampments, and to make use of the powers they have.

[Roberta Blackman-Woods]

I assure the Minister that the Opposition understand that it is the responsibility of local authorities to bring sites forward. However, perhaps he will say what his Government are doing to support local authorities in delivering enough sites, particularly to make up the backlog.

[Brandon Lewis]

If the hon. Lady reads Hansard, she will see that a few moments ago, I outlined the £60 million-odd we have put in for the extra Traveller encampments. I just wish that Labour-run Harlow had taken advantage of that and made a bid for it, as it told us it had—in fact, it had not done so.

It is important that those organisations work together, but I am worried that the community in Harlow has not benefited from it. I will seek urgent discussions with my ministerial colleagues to consider what more we can do. I look forward to working with colleagues who have spoken about how we ensure that our policy delivers, not just for the people of Harlow and the east of England, but right across our country.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Brandon Lewis and Roberta Blackman-Woods

Monday 10th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

The hon. Gentleman highlights an issue for local authorities, and Labour’s plans, which would allow councils to build on other councils’ land, would create that very problem. That is why we have the duty to co-operate and planning inspectors look very carefully at how it is exercised. I would be very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss the issue.

[Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)]

Recent research by planning consultancy Turley shows that areas of below average income have so far been less involved in the neighbourhood planning process, with just nine plans published in areas categorised as most deprived. What do the Government intend to do to ensure that more disadvantaged communities can participate in this process and that it does not become the preserve of the affluent few?

[Brandon Lewis]

All communities should be looking to undertake neighbourhood planning. I visited Southwark last week to see the excellent work being done there. A wide range of more than 1,250 areas are undertaking neighbourhood planning. Obviously, a few are ahead of the others and there have been 34 referendums. We have put in more money and are funding local areas that undertake neighbourhood planning and the local authorities to support them. I encourage all areas and communities to consider undertaking a neighbourhood plan.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Brandon Lewis and Roberta Blackman-Woods

Monday 25th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has had a chance to consider the fact that, unlike the previous Labour Government, we have trebled small business rate relief, as well as giving power to local authorities. I strongly suggest that authorities use the powers they have to discount business rates, as well as utilise the 333 town teams working hard for their communities around the country. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman does not want to give these people the credit for the hard work that they are putting in.

[Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)]

The Minister will no doubt be aware that the most recent issue of Planning magazine reported its survey results showing that a lack of resources in council planning departments was seriously holding up decision making. Why, then, is the Minister exacerbating the situation by forcing councils to bear the brunt of expensive article 4 directions time after time after time? Why will the Minister not give councils and local communities real powers to shape their town centres instead of burdening them with costly bureaucratic hoops to jump through?

[Brandon Lewis]

I would gently say to the hon. Lady that, as I said in response to the main question, 97 article 4 directions have gone through this year alone, while local authorities have their local plan as well as article 4. The clue is in the title: the planning should be plan-driven. There are also town teams, Portas pilots and, as I said, more than £900 million-worth of business rate relief for small businesses, as well as the power to discount more locally. I suggest the hon. Lady get behind the town teams that are working so hard instead of putting them down.

National Planning Policy Framework

Debate between Brandon Lewis and Roberta Blackman-Woods

Thursday 26th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Roberta Blackman-Woods]

The hon. Lady is right that the guidance must be interpreted by local communities as well as planners. We are saying that brevity should have led to clear language, but it has often led to obscure language, which will make it equally difficult for local communities and planners to argue a clear case.

[Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give examples of that obscure language? One thing that struck me and the parish councils to which I have spoken is the simple, clear and normal English language used in the document. They applaud that because it is in stark contrast to some of the Dickensian language used in most planning and other legislation in the past.

[Roberta Blackman-Woods]

Many commentators have written about how vague a lot of the language in the NPPF is and we have rehearsed it many times in previous discussions. My point is that far from increasing the power of communities, which has been much championed by the Minister, the NPPF could lead to even more decisions being made by the Planning Inspectorate, which is removed from local communities.

On local communities, the principle of encouraging more neighbourhood planning is one that all hon. Members share. The Minister was right on Tuesday to point out that I am very much in support of neighbourhood planning—I am encouraging local groups in Durham to get involved—but he should acknowledge that neighbourhood planning is not new, because parish councils have been undertaking it for a number of years. Indeed, I have been involved in drawing up local plans in Durham with local groups for many years.