Local Housing Need Assessment Reform

Chris Bloore Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) and congratulate him on securing this important debate.

I am afraid this is just another example of the two-tier society that this Government are presiding over. We have had two-tier taxes and two-tier justice and now we have two-tier targets. That is the reality, and it militates against the basic British principle of fairness. I will go through the numbers in a second, but Labour’s own council leaders have called the Minister’s targets unrealistic and impossible to achieve. The leader of West Lancashire council used exactly those words: “impossible and unrealistic”. The targets are unachievable.

I am in no way, shape or form a nimby. Unlike 15 of the Minister’s colleagues in the Cabinet, I have never objected to any developments in my constituency as a Member of Parliament or as a member of the public. I am absolutely on the side of young people who want to get on the housing ladder and those on lower incomes seeking affordable homes. The only way to deliver that is to deliver more homes. I am not against the Minister’s 1.5 million target, but it will be very challenging. We should look at the data: over the last 10 years we were in office, average net housing additions were 207,000 a year. That was the highest level for 50 years—even higher than in the 1970s, because we were knocking down an awful lot of houses back then.

The targets have been driven by the change from assessment of housing formations to a measure of stock already delivered in an area, with a multiplier on top for affordability, but they are totally unfair. London has seen an 11% decrease in its target, Leicester a 32% decrease and Birmingham a 38% decrease. Coventry has seen a 55% decrease in its housing target, yet the neighbouring authority of North Warwickshire has had a 123% increase. That is despite the fact that North Warwickshire, like my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) said of his authority, has over-delivered on its housing targets. Nuneaton, another bordering authority that is over-delivering, has had a 75% increase in its housing target compared with Coventry.

I am trying not to be too parochial but in my neck of the woods, York, which has been under-delivering massively against its housing target for years and years, and had not had a local plan since 1956—it has just got one in place, thank God—has seen a 19% increase, yet neighbouring North Yorkshire, which is my local authority, has had a 199% increase, despite significant over-delivery.

Of Members who have spoken in the debate, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire has had a 100% increase in his area; the hon. Member for Horsham a 48% increase; the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) a 63% increase; the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) a 72% increase; and the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) a 66% increase. I like the Minister and we get on very well, but his authority in Nottingham has had a 32% decrease. How can that be fair? It is against the basic principle of fairness. Yes, there is a 50% increase in delivery across the board, but why have some targets been decreased and others massively increased? That is simply unfair.

Those are not anecdotal cases. Based on information from the House of Commons Library, across the board, mainly rural areas are seeing an average 71% increase and urban areas an average 15.6% increase. On top of that there is the duty to co-operate and strategic planning, which is likely to see even more houses going into rural areas. There is no justification for that unfairness. It also sits against the principle that the Government say they adopt, as we did, of a brownfield-first approach.

Brownfield development is the least controversial approach, and it is what we would all like to see, but it is complex and costly, particularly in a world of increased costs of delivery. Over the past few years, developers have seen a 40% increase in costs of building. On top of that is the building safety levy, the Building Safety Regulator, biodiversity net gain, the future homes standard, section 106, the community infrastructure levy and the remediation of brownfield sites. Those things, and the Government’s policy on grey belt, will mean that more and more development will be pushed from urban areas into greenfield and green belt.

What the Government are doing with the national planning policy framework cannot be divorced from the Planning and Infrastructure Bill and the Trojan horse that they called grey belt. What they sold to the public as being a few former garage forecourts or wasteland is far from that. It is greenfield and green belt. The Minister cannot shake his head. There used to be protections between villages to stop them merging, and they have gone. There used to be protections to stop villages merging into towns, and they have gone. This is not about grey belt; it is a fundamental change to green belt.

Of course, this is not about targets. It would be pointless to have this debate and just talk about targets—we have to talk about delivery. The 1.5 million homes are a huge ask. The reality is that to hit that target for England, for the rest of this Parliament, delivery will need to hit not 207,000 a year, which we averaged, but 375,000 a year. That is a 180% increase—a doubling.

[Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)]

I congratulate you, Mrs Hobhouse, on your chairmanship and the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) on securing the debate, which has been well-mannered and thoughtful on all sides. The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) is giving a fighting and boisterous speech, but I remind him that we both stood on manifestos that contained numbers of new homes that we would build. In fact, his party’s number was bigger than the Government’s: it was 1.6 million. If we are going to talk about facts and how we deliver these things, let us talk about sense and pragmatism, and not rhetoric, because, unfortunately, what he is saying now is not what he said at the election.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Good for the hon. Gentleman for reading our manifesto—not enough people did, I am afraid. He is right: we did set a more ambitious target, which I am not against. As I said right at the start, I am in no shape or form a nimby. However, I am for honesty and fairness. The point is that the housing targets have been moved away from certain types of area where people tend to move. They tend to move from rural to urban to take their first job or start their first business, as I did, but the targets are going from urban to rural.

The Minister faces many challenges alongside the huge number he has set himself. The Office for Budget Responsibility and Homes England have said that the number targeted is impossible. Let us see. I wish him well for delivery, although not on the skewed figures that we have discussed today. There are real challenges here, as the Minister knows: things such as the Building Safety Regulator; the skills issue; small and medium-sized enterprises, which build a far smaller proportion of homes than they used to; and making sure that we get first-time buyers on to the housing ladder.

We have tabled a number of amendments to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill that will solve all these problems, and I very much hope that the Minister will look at them. One of them proposes no solar on any best and most versatile land. I am sure that the Minister will look at that, because it would potentially leave space for more British farmland to produce fantastic food. We have also tabled amendments on protected landscapes—my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire has a significant section of protected landscape in his patch, which is bound to constrain supply, but no recognition has been made of that—and on ensuring that there is no plus or minus beyond 20% in any of these targets, which would be fairer. We will also seek to amend the national scheme of delegation, which disgracefully removes votes from councillors, and restore the protections for the green belt. As some in this excellent debate have said, we need a better mix that is more suited to demand in local areas.

I very much hope that the Minister will support those amendments, but, because I feel that he will not, I will make one plea to him: please, look at the Building Safety Regulator. There is a queue of 18,000 homes with planning consent that are waiting six months or more for an answer from the Building Safety Regulator. That is a huge bottleneck in supply. I hope that the Minister will at least touch on that point.

High Street Rental Auctions

Chris Bloore Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Vickers. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Jessica Toale) for securing this debate. It is an important debate, because when we talk to people in towns such as Burntwood in my constituency, they see their town centre—their high street—as a physical representation of how well the economy is doing. For obvious reasons, much of the conversation in politics at the moment is about growth, which the Government have placed at the heart of what they want to do, but the line about growth being felt everywhere needs to be demonstrated through a revival of our high streets and town centres.

I look around at hon. Members present in this debate, and we are town MPs by and large. It is town centres that have really struggled over a number of years of Government inaction, as well as the bluff and buster about levelling up that failed to do anything. When I talk to my constituents about what levelling up means, it is very difficult to tie down, but if growth is to be felt everywhere in the country, it needs to come back to those high streets and town centres.

I am pleased that the new Government are giving councils the powers to act on the issue and revitalise our high streets, such as the power to take an empty shop and get a business in there, so that somebody can visit and buy something, or they can spend their time and invest themselves in their town. Within that, I am particularly pleased that Lichfield district council is an early adopter and will be acting quickly to use those new powers to ensure that landlords are leasing those properties in Lichfield city centre and Burntwood.

Lichfield is lucky to have a thriving city centre, and we are fortunate to have great cafés and a wonderful set of pubs and restaurants, including the only Michelin star ever awarded in Staffordshire. Although my constituents are happy to have that café culture, they would also like to go into town and buy more than a vape. They are happy to support charity shops, but they would also like something that did not have the word “charity” before “shop”. Hopefully, the introduction of this new policy, as well as the district council following it through, will change the economics to support those traditional retailers, such as clothes retailers, to come back to our cities so that people can patronise those shops.

Up the road in Burntwood, it is a different story. Burntwood is a town of around 35,000 people. It developed from a number of villages growing into each other during the last century, but it has been starved of investment for decades. The town centre in Burntwood, which is almost ready to go, is great and there are wonderful businesses at Sankey’s Corner, but it has not had the investment to make that really kick on. This new Government policy is a wonderful opportunity to ensure that, where there are great shops, the gaps in the middle are filled.

People in Burntwood are sick and tired of being told to wait their turn. For too long, under the previous Government, that was the policy for such places: “Wait your turn. Keep bidding for these £20 million pots, and one will come to you eventually, but we can’t tell you when. It might come down the line”—but it never came. People in the town do not want to wait for a handout. They do not want someone to ride in on a white charger and say, “I am bestowing upon you your £20 million. It will solve everything for you!” That is not how our economy works. We do not have a planned economy in the UK—it is not Soviet Russia.

We want to support genuine, real local businesses to start up and deliver services for our residents. I looked forward to coming to this debate to discuss this issue and say how important this policy is for councils to make sure that people have venues to access.

[Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Jessica Toale) on securing this excellent debate. The good people of Lichfield and Redditch share a lot of common themes, particularly the pride in our town centres and high streets. My businesses, like those of my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson), have spent so much money on doing up their shops, and they have worked with the Redditch business improvement district and the council to do all they can to bring people in. They have been let down because we do not have the powers to support them by closing those vacant shops and getting more people in. I strongly welcome these powers, but does he agree that we can make the difference that our high streets and towns deserve if the Government work together with our excellent councils—such as the newly Labour-elected Redditch borough council, which is about to reopen the outdoor market for the first time in five years under the leadership of Councillor Joe Baker—instead of pitting town against town?

[Dave Robertson]

I thank my hon. Friend from the end of the railway line for his intervention—it is a long railway line and the busiest outside London. He is right that towns should never be pitted against each other. Far too often, even in my constituency, which has two towns of around 35,000 people, it is sometimes felt that one of them gets the cheese and one of them does not. That is unfortunate for the town that is considered to have got the cheese, because everyone deserves the support, but it is really unfair for the town that feels like it does not have it. Every single town deserves that kind of town centre; every single high street deserves that vibrancy. They deserve to thrive, and the people who live there deserve to have that centre—a place they can invest themselves in in their local area.

On that basis, I am very happy to support the policy that the Government are introducing. However, that absolutely cannot be the end of this. I will keep fighting for Burntwood town centre. I will keep fighting for high streets, and not just in towns—I could get on to village high streets, but somebody will punch me in a minute. I will continue to fight for more for Burntwood and continue talking to developers, working with the council and working with any stakeholder that I can to drive investment into our town centres. This is a great start from my Government, but there is always more to do.

Responsibilities of Housing Developers

Chris Bloore Excerpts

Wednesday 11th December 2024 Westminster Hall

[Robbie Moore]

Absolutely; my hon. Friend makes an excellent intervention. All too often, we see little pockets of development taking place on the outskirts of relatively small towns, without due consideration of the wider challenges with traffic congestion on highways, schools, doctors’ surgeries and indeed the retail offering. Crikey, how many huge developments do we now see taking place where no thought is given even to having a local corner shop within easy access of the residents? Masterplanning and properly considering the impact of these developments on communities such as mine are vital.

That brings me to the next issue, which is that when a development has gone through the planning consent process and been built, and residents start moving in and to reside in the development, there is a challenge around how the site is maintained. I will use the example of the Miller Homes development in Eastburn, which is just next to Silsden and Steeton in my constituency. Miller Homes had completed the development, and then all residents were expected to pay a levy charge to a maintenance company, for the maintenance company to then use that money to instruct a contractor that would carry out any maintenance of the grassed areas or hedging within the development. What we were finding was that a resident had no control, necessarily, over how much levy they were paying that maintenance company, but neither did they have any control over the quality of the work being undertaken or over how regularly grass was being cut or hedges were being maintained. The system was not working.

I have had many meetings with residents on the issue. I have written to Miller Homes; I have also written to the management company dealing with the matter, because I feel that the situation is geared up for it to be able to make too much profit, and the quality of the service delivered for residents in Eastburn is so much less sufficient. In effect, those who have contacted me are trapped: they are paying for a service that they are not receiving and they cannot escape the situation without moving entirely. That cannot be fair. Better regulation of maintenance levy money for carrying out works on the ground and having a proper quality of work being carried out need to be looked at.

As I have said many times in this place, local people are not opposed to new housing, but they want guarantees that services and infrastructure will be upgraded to accommodate the new influx of people. We should be encouraging our housing sector to see the benefits of extra engagement and extra investment in order to open up public support so that more developments are able to take place further down the line. We must also convene developments and developers that work collaboratively with communities, so we can ensure that local communities are getting what they want. Based on the ambitious targets that the new Labour Government have released for increasing the number of houses and on their willingness, effectively, not to take into account local consideration and local consultation, I fear that there will be a dramatically negative impact on many small communities.

I will give a further example. In the village of Addingham in my constituency, people went through a very long process of negotiating their neighbourhood plan. They came to the conclusion that over the next 15 years Addingham would be able to accept about 75 new homes being constructed. Bradford council, which is Labour-controlled, comes along and effectively says, “No, no: we are going to ignore what you have spent the last God knows how many years developing, and say that another 181 new houses in Addingham would be far more appropriate.” That goes against all the work that the local community had done and against any need assessment that had been properly established for that community to grow. I urge the Government to ensure that they always take into account local need and local assessments, as well as the negative impacts on local communities.

[Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)]

I would like to make two quick points. Constituents of mine who live in the Brockhill area have been waiting 20 years for roads and areas of grass to be adopted, for upkeep discussions to happen and agreements to be made. That has happened under both blue and red local administrations, so I do not think this is a party issue. This is about a system that has been failing residents for a very long time.

Secondly, at the last election the Labour party proposed 1.5 million houses, but the hon. Member will remember that his party’s manifesto proposed 1.6 million houses. When we are talking about building houses that people need, we should also have honest discussions about the fact that homes will need to be built.

[Robbie Moore]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, but he started off by saying, “I’m not going to make this political,” and then went on to make a very political point.

I secured this debate to raise the concerns that residents have been raising. I robustly say to this new Labour Administration that communities like mine in Keighley, Silsden, Addingham and Ilkley, across the Worth valley, are fed up of having housing development after housing development approved by our Labour-controlled local authority without any due consideration of the negative impacts on our communities and infrastructure. There will be impacts, for instance, on our community’s ability to get a doctor’s appointment and on the development of our proper road infrastructure. This is political if Labour’s ambitions are to effectively get rid of the green belt and open up the grey belt when there is no due consideration of the local impacts that that will have.

My constituents and people across the country will want to hear from the Minister what plans the Government have to address the concerns that I have raised. The public must have confidence in the housing process. Otherwise, they will resist new developments, and quite rightly so. If the Government are truly ambitious in their plans to build new homes, they must tackle the issues that I have raised before the impacts are exacerbated and have negative consequences on, I suspect, most of the constituencies of hon. Members speaking in today’s debate.

It concerns me deeply that the rhetoric from the Government now seems to be that we need to loosen the housing and planning systems even further, yet we have heard no comments so far from the Government that address the existing concerns about the current system and the services and infrastructure being put in place. As I said, no one can object to the right houses for the right people in the right places—that is why local consideration is so important. If we want to achieve that, we must ensure that our developers behave responsibly and do not damage the vital link of trust between them and the public. Towns like Silsden in my constituency, villages like Long Lee and, indeed, the whole of the housing market rely on it.