Neighbourhood Planning Bill (Fifth sitting)

Debate between Chris Philp and Roberta Blackman-Woods

Committee Debate: 5th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 25th October 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point that is pertinent to our discussion.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is very kind to give way, and it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. In response to the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton, if one requires developers to do all the surveys before the application, and the application is then declined by the local authority, the developer will incur significant costs to no purpose. That may prove prohibitive, particularly for smaller developers. What is her view on that?

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows that local authorities approve nine out of 10 planning applications. It would be a rare event for such a detailed plan to come forward to a local authority without the developer knowing that it was breaching local planning policy. That is what must be happening if the application is rejected. That is not a very usual occurrence these days.

If the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton and the Minister are serious about speeding up development, they might want to look at the outcome of the FMB’s house builders survey 2016. One would assume, from reading the Bill, that the major problem in bringing forward development was pre-commencement planning conditions. However, when the small house builders were asked what was the biggest problem, they said it was the lack of available and viable land. That was the most commonly cited barrier to increasing output. We have to look right at the back of the survey, to a few specific questions on planning, to find any mention of planning conditions, and even then they were not the biggest problem; the biggest problem was the inadequate resourcing of planning departments. I hate to say that again and reinforce the message, but we are not the ones saying it; it is the small house builders.

Land is the biggest problem by far, and pre-commencement conditions do not come anywhere near that. Within planning itself, the biggest problem is the resourcing of planning departments—and that comment came only after prompting. They do not mention the setting of planning conditions at all; what they mention is sign-off of planning conditions. That seems to be a very different issue that they are raising. They are not raising an issue about the nature of pre-commencement planning conditions, or whether those conditions are appropriate. What they say in the text is that they could be signed off more quickly and that might help. Why are they not signed off more quickly? It is because of a lack of resourcing for local authority planning departments.

That was the only survey brought to our attention. I searched and found no other evidence, apart from the opinions of some of the larger volume builders. Giving such additional powers to the Secretary of State with no solid evidence base does not seem a very sensible way forward.

Some clauses in the Bill do not have the worrying aspects attached to them that this one does. If the effect of clause 7 is to restrict conditions that are set on developers, that could have a real impact on the community—not only on those who will ultimately occupy that development but on the neighbourhood. That is why we are so concerned about clause 7. We do not think it is necessary; we have not seen the evidence base. If the Bill is to contain such drastic measures, which could have real impacts on the areas that we all serve and represent, we need to hear something from the Minister.

Amendment 18 seeks to amend clause 7 so that if a condition cannot be enforced by the Secretary of State to make the development acceptable in planning terms, it makes the development unacceptable in other ways. Proposed section 100ZA(2) states:

“Regulations under subsection (1) may make provision only if (and in so far as) the Secretary of State is satisfied that the provision is appropriate for the purposes of ensuring that any condition imposed on a grant of planning permission for the development of land in England is...necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point about the various surveys that the Minister mentioned, which I was about to come to.

[Chris Philp]

I was about to draw the hon. Lady’s attention to the extensive list of submissions that the Minister read out in his speech a few minutes ago. Perhaps I might add my own experience. As I mentioned in my declaration of interests, prior to being elected I ran a business that provided finance for construction projects. The whole array of pre-commencement conditions are often very detailed. For example, they frequently stipulate precisely what kind of brick must be used and it often takes a very long time to get discharged. The pre-commencement conditions are often more detailed than one would reasonably expect.

With respect to the shadow Minister, I do think there is an issue here and that the Minister is trying to address it in a balanced and reasonable way.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

In which case, what I would say is that we need the evidence in front of us. What examples are there? In how many sets of circumstances? How and why are the conditions inappropriate? In a conservation area, for example, the type of brick would be an important pre-commencement condition.

The evidence from Knight Frank was an assertion that there was a problem because we had no details and no number of applications—nothing. The Crest Nicholson example was a problem with signing off pre-commencement conditions and we on the Labour Benches have already said we recognise that is a problem. The signing off of pre-commencement conditions is a very different issue from the setting of conditions, and the clause is about the setting of planning conditions.

In the NHBC survey, the primary problem identified was again the time taken to discharge the conditions, not the conditions themselves. That was also the primary concern in the District Councils Network survey. We are not saying there is no evidence out there of problems signing off pre-commencement conditions—

Neighbourhood Planning Bill (Second sitting)

Debate between Chris Philp and Roberta Blackman-Woods

Committee Debate: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 18th October 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Chris Philp]

Are there any additional comments? Thank you.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

Q Can I move on to look at some of the compulsory purchase order provisions in the Bill? To what extent do you think the proposals in the Bill will free up more land for development and lead to the delivery of more homes in a speedier and more streamlined way?

Richard Asher: I think that any improvements to the compulsory purchase process are to be welcomed. The provisions in the Bill for resolving the long-standing issues about temporary possession are very important. It has long been an area of great difficulty for practitioners to try to interpret how temporary possession should be dealt with. That is a key advantage of the Bill. Some of the detail needs further work, as the wording could lead to further legal disputes or litigation. However, the principle of providing for temporary possession on broadly the same terms as permanent acquisition is very important.

There is one area of difficulty: the danger that authorities may use powers to acquire land compulsorily when it is only required on a temporary basis. That interferes with long-term prospects for development by landowners, whose development plans are quite often disrupted by compulsory purchase on a temporary basis. That needs to be considered to ensure that authorities only acquire land on a temporary basis when it is required temporarily.

Colin Cottage: I agree with that, and the Compulsory Purchase Association welcomes a more codified approach to temporary acquisition. At the moment, the large number of compulsory purchase orders do not allow for temporary possession at all. Where there is potential to introduce it through development consent orders, Transport and Works Act orders and so on, each of those particular instruments is drawn separately, so a codified approach is to be welcomed.

As Richard said, there are practical issues with temporary possession that need to be dealt with, including the interrelationships between different tenures in land, how to deal with an occupier of land when that land is taken temporarily, and what to do if buildings have to be demolished and so on. Those issues can be overcome, but they need to be looked at carefully if the Bill is to come into law and to not cause, rather than solve, problems.

Another issue that we are quite conscious of is the ability to take both temporary and permanent possession. We are of the view that a decision should be taken at the outset as to whether possession will be temporary or permanent. When a business or individual homeowner is faced with compulsory acquisition, and possession is initially taken temporarily but may ultimately become permanent, huge amounts of uncertainty are created. The person or business does not know how long the land will be taken for, and whether it will be for a temporary period or whether it will be permanent, and that makes planning difficult.

When temporary possession is taken initially, compensation is paid on the temporary basis. At the moment, because the system is not codified, there is no strict ruling about when compensation is paid, so the introduction in the Bill of advanced payments should be encouraged. But, of course, even if compensation is paid, it is on a temporary basis. If permanent possession is then taken, it may cause a problem for relocation or for funding a business move.

Richard Blyth: The concern for us, as we set out in our briefing, is that we do not think it is reasonable for the owners of private land to benefit from public investment in infrastructure. I am not a lawyer so I cannot tell whether that is in the provisions of the Bill but, from a lay point of view, that is an important point.

I was in another building in the Palace of Westminster yesterday talking about the issue of land hoarding before the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government. The Royal Town Planning Institute is not really of the view that developers are necessarily guilty of as much land hoarding as is the case. There is a difficulty in situations where the most sustainable choice for the expansion of a town requires the conversion of greenfield land into housing land. That puts the owner of that land in an extremely powerful position. It would be regrettable in that situation if those owners were, as it were, to hold the city to ransom—to require very high prices for the sale of land for conversion to residential use—not only because of ideological concern but because finding money for schools, health centres, roads and other infrastructure is increasingly difficult.

What is vested in the increase in land value coming from the grant of planning permission is an extremely important possible source for trying to deal with the difficulties of the lack of infrastructure provision in relation to housing. It may assist with what Dr Blackman-Woods started with—the understandable resistance to large-scale housing development that communities feel when they find it means there is a longer queue for the doctor, it is harder to get a primary school place and there is more congestion on the roads and railways. In answer to that question, lower land prices would be useful. I would not advocate CPOs as a way of enforcing that, but they are a useful thing to have deep in the background.

Neighbourhood Planning Bill (First sitting)

Debate between Chris Philp and Roberta Blackman-Woods

Committee Debate: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 18th October 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

Q Do you think that the measures in the Bill change the balance of power more towards the developer, and what are the risks with that? We have not yet talked this morning of the risks, particularly in clause 7.

Hugh Ellis: Pursuing that point, it is an issue about whether you end up with a planning system whose primary purpose is the efficient allocation of units or a wider endeavour around place-making and inclusion. Although it seems like a good idea because it is difficult to defend inefficiency or apparent inefficiency when it is thrown up, really good place-making requires good dialogue with developers, but also strong control from local government and an empowered local government to ensure that community visions are truly delivered.

The system has been weakened—permitted development is one example of that—and the Bill needs to strike the right balance. I suppose that if it went forward, the safeguard would be, and would need to be in the wider system, the place-making objective, otherwise we would find a series of outcomes that potentially have very long-term and serious impacts on everything from public health to wider economic efficiency.

Councillor Newman: I agree with that. As I said earlier, the Bill would potentially build in a more confrontational approach, and we would lose that ability to have a place-making and sustainability overview of a development, along with the benefits and perhaps future development to come.

Somebody mentioned permitted development. We have certainly seen the flip-side of that. Where permitted development has sometimes let rip, we have seen poor-quality provision of homes—perhaps people do not have any choice in a market such as London. Permitted development has proved not to be the answer. At one point, I think, half the permitted development in London was happening in Croydon. We got an article 4 direction for Croydon town centre, and we were able to protect what is now thriving business use and office space, so permitted development was not only delivering poor-quality planning outcomes but threating our local economy by damaging a space that is now at a premium for investment in jobs.

All that would reinforce my view that you need a holistic approach where possible. That is not to be naïve—there will always be confrontation in the system, but to build it in at the start seems to me to be the wrong approach, and in the LGA’s view it is an unnecessary further layer of legislation or red tape in the process.

Duncan Wilson: It seems to me that there are two issues. One is the imposition of unnecessary conditions and the other is the time taken to discharge conditions. I have been on the other side of the table too as, in effect, the developer of a number of major heritage schemes in London, and inasmuch as we had any trouble, it was to do with the time taken to discharge conditions, which was largely related to the people and resource within the local authority—it is simply a matter of getting people up to the place to tick the box and see that we had done what was required of us. The same applies to a whole load of other things such as building regulations.

On the imposition of unnecessary conditions, the local authority has to be reasonable already—if it is felt that unnecessary conditions are being imposed, it is challengeable. I worry that the proposed new system will lead the local authority to have to make a choice early on as to whether it wants to impose a condition that would be challenged—the application could be turned down and the condition challenged again. That whole system would surely take longer than arguing about the condition and determining whether to impose it at the beginning.

Angus Walker: In line with the other speakers, I think that the planning system is a balance. Although economic growth is important and development contributes to that, it still has to be in the right context and have regard to social and environmental factors.

I can see that, if an applicant and a local planning authority cannot agree on a condition, in some cases the planning authority will refuse permission, which may be appealed and then allowed. In others, the authority will agree the application without the condition in it, even though it might have been one that ought to have been imposed. In answer to your question, it seems to me that there is a slight increase in the balance being weighed towards applicants by the measure.

[Chris Philp]

Q Good morning. One of the speakers briefly touched on this. What is the panellists’ opinion about whether planning departments in local authorities are adequately resourced to deal with the kind of issues we are discussing—pre-commencement conditions and the determination of applications?

Councillor Newman: Local government has taken more than its fair share of efficiency savings in the past few years and has faced serious cuts. Planning has to be properly resourced: the LGA would put forward the figure of £150 million a year for the planning department, which is effectively subsidised by the council tax payer. The British Property Federation—two thirds of it anyway—supports the view that they would rather see a contribution that meant it was properly resourced and not subsidised by the taxpayer, and there are always issues around recruitment. Many planning departments work well but are stretched to the limit. There are extra pressures and other challenges in growth areas. I do not just want to sit here and say that more resources are needed, but local government is operating on tight budgets after year-on-year decreases in our budgets.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Chris Philp and Roberta Blackman-Woods

Tuesday 12th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I could not agree more. The proposals are an attack on aspiration, leaving some families with impossible choices.

As Tony Stacey, chair of PlaceShapers, which represents 100 housing associations, said, this policy conflicts with the Government’s desire to get people into better paid work. He said that it was a bit perverse, compared with the Government’s other policies to make work pay. If the policy goes ahead, it seems that people who are paid more for additional work undertaken or for promotion could face a sudden increase in rent or eviction.

It is interesting to see that the Government caved into pressure from housing associations and removed the element of compulsion from them, but that only means that council tenants are now being singled out for the application of these extraordinary measures. As councils say that the provisions are unworkable in any case, will the Minister explain to us why he has insisted that they should remain for council tenants?

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

Is the hon. Lady seriously suggesting that people should receive heavily subsidised housing even if they earn very high incomes?

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

As we did our best to explain to the hon. Gentleman in Committee, such housing is often not subsidised. The point that we are making is that councils already have the discretion to set higher rents for people with higher incomes if they choose to do so. What we are querying this afternoon is why the Government are introducing an element of compulsion and why this will apply to council tenants only.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Chris Philp and Roberta Blackman-Woods

Tuesday 5th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that the starter home discount, combined with Help to Buy, which requires only a 5% deposit, makes starter homes extremely affordable to almost everybody?

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

As the hon. Gentleman will know because he sat through the Committee stage, evidence from Shelter suggests that starter homes will be unaffordable to people on low incomes in 98% of the country, and unaffordable to those on middle incomes in 58% of the country. For that reason we think that local authorities should have more flexibility to deliver other forms of affordable housing alongside starter homes.

Housing and Planning Bill (Sixteenth sitting)

Debate between Chris Philp and Roberta Blackman-Woods

Thursday 10th December 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I am sure that that clarification is helpful.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman and then I am anxious to conclude because other Members want to speak.

[Chris Philp]

The hon. Lady is very kind to give way. Of course Conservative Members agree that we should build more social or affordable housing, and the Bill will achieve that. Does she agree, however, that cases such as that of the former Member for Holborn and St Pancras, Frank Dobson, who occupied a council house for 30-odd years despite being a Cabinet Minister, are poor use of housing stock, and that a family in Camden on a low income would have been much better off occupying that council property?

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

The hon. Gentleman needs to turn his attention to what the Local Government Association has said on the matter:

“The Localism Act 2011 introduced flexible tenancies in acknowledgement that ‘a one size fits all model on rents and tenancies is not the best answer to the wide range of needs and circumstances’”.

Local authorities already can offer flexible tenancies if they want to. The provisions before the Committee would force all councils to do it, and do it in a particular way, whether or not that accorded with local circumstances and met tenants’ needs.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne said that the provisions are a continuation of a “vendetta against council tenants”. The manner in which they have been tabled, and the lack of consultation with the housing sector, tenants or anyone who might be affected, show that he is probably right. I look forward to the Minister’s having the good sense to withdraw them and to allow proper discussion of such a key issue before a decision is made.

Housing and Planning Bill (Seventeenth sitting)

Debate between Chris Philp and Roberta Blackman-Woods

Thursday 10th December 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

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

The new clause would apply to all new homes for sale given planning permission by local authorities, as well as those given permission in principle, under provisions in the Housing and Planning Bill. The new clause would give local authorities the power to require a proportion of new homes for sale to be marketed exclusively to local first-time buyers for a specified period. Local authorities could make a judgment call about what proportion was reasonable. The new clause would allow the Secretary of State or, in Greater London, the Mayor of London, to make reasonable definitions of the time period for exclusive local marketing and to make definitions of what “local” means.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

I entirely agree with the hon. Lady’s desire to encourage first-time buyers. Does she not agree, though, that the starter home provisions that we agreed some weeks ago will go a very long way towards doing that?

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

What the new clause is designed to do, which I think the hon. Gentleman has probably realised—I am not totally sure—is to ensure that where new homes are available, they go to local people. There would be a period of time during which they were marketed to local people. This is particularly a London issue, and I will go on to talk about why it is so critical in London.

In many parts of the country, local first-time buyers compete for new homes with second-home buyers and buy-to-let investors. There is wide concern that the problem affecting first-time buyers is growing and that something needs to be done. The director of research at Countrywide was reported in the Daily Express as saying that

“landlords and first-time buyers are now in direct competition because they tend to look for homes that are smaller and cheaper than average.”

The trend has been confirmed by the mortgage search tracker from Mortgage Advice Bureau, whose data in November showed that the number of buy-to-let landlords searching for mortgages on cheaper properties was up 17% on the same quarter last year.

The property website Rightmove was reported in The Guardian in October as saying:

“First-time buyers are facing asking prices almost 10% higher than a year ago because of demand from buy-to-let investors”.

In February 2015, the rural housing policy review, chaired by Lord Richard Best and sponsored by Hastoe housing association, recommended that, in areas of high second-home ownership, the Government should require

“a proportion of new…homes granted planning permission…to be with the condition that they can only be used as principal residences.”

There are, as we know, particular impacts in London from the non-availability of homes for first-time buyers. In London, the problem of first-time buyers being squeezed out is particularly acute, with high proportions of new homes sold to investors, including off-plan overseas investors.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Philp]

Before one could sign up to the new clause, one would want to see the detail, which clearly is not there. I think I have made my point in general terms.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I have been momentarily knocked off track by the hon. Gentleman’s final comments. We have been debating most of the Bill without the detail we need because most of it is coming in regulations, so I hope he will address those comments to his Ministers.

I rise to support new clause 24, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood, and to speak briefly to new clause 31. The hon. Member for Croydon South might want to think about why so many planners from local authorities are leaving to join the private sector, because that used not to happen. It is a fairly recent phenomenon that so many local authority planners have been moving on. The reason is that local authority planning departments are in a very, very pressed situation, with reduced resources, greater pressure and increasing insecurity because they do not know when the next round of Government cuts is going to mean that they will lose their job. The only way to address that is to resource local authority planning departments properly—something that developers speak to me about all the time.

If the hon. Member for Peterborough is upset by the Local Government Association backing my hon. Friend’s new clause, he will be even more upset by the fact that the District Councils Network has come out very strongly in favour of the idea that there should be some cost recovery at a local level:

“Having a system where Whitehall dictates to local councils what planning fees they can charge is very unfair for local taxpayers around the country who are left paying the shortfall where fees don’t cover costs. Letting councils set their own fees is a much fairer system for both the applicant and the local taxpayer and will ensure there is flexibility in the system to recover the actual costs of applications.”

In 2010, a major review, which was instigated by the last Labour Government, was carried out of how local planning fees should operate. Instead of bringing forward a plan for the localisation of planning fees, as had been suggested throughout the consultation exercise before 2010, the Government merely revised the fee levels in 2012. That did not carry with it the degree of localism that we all wanted to see. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, London Councils has stressed that point recently, because of the impact of the increasing number of planning applications that local authorities are having to deal with, particularly in the London area:

“We believe the government should localise fee setting and scheduling controls so as to support boroughs that commit to boost the supply of housing. This would produce a more effective, swifter and consistent planning service, and ensure a properly resourced and more efficient planning system in the context of development control in London having seen an estimated net shortfall of around £37-£45 million annually”.

London Councils has stated that,

“if planning fees for large scale housing regeneration projects were charged on a full cost recovery system enabling councils to meet all 13 week planning targets, this would save developers up to £486 million per year in delayed development costs, while adding only £65 million in planning fees. Full cost charging could also be used to fund the kind of pro-active multi-borough teams that supported the work”

of the Olympic Delivery Authority. Developers, the LGA, London Councils and the District Councils Network —more or less everyone involved in the planning and development system—think that local authorities should be able to set planning fees locally, but the Government do not. We can find no rationale for that. The District Councils Network has helpfully set out for the Government some principles that could be applied.

Housing and Planning Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

Debate between Chris Philp and Roberta Blackman-Woods

Tuesday 8th December 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point and comes to the nub of what I want to ask the Minister. As requested by Wildlife and Countryside Link and many other organisations, he needs to confirm that the measures are not a contravention of article 6 of the Aarhus convention, which was ratified by the UK Government in 2005. I am sure the Minister knows, because he studies the convention over breakfast in the morning to ensure that all planning decisions that come to the Department do not contravene it, that the article sets out standards for public engagement, with particular regard to ensuring a strong local agenda. It is public engagement in its widest sense.

People are concerned that the Government proposals simply ditch the entire localism agenda and that they are instead adopting, as my hon. Friend just said, a highly centralist and top-down approach to how planning permission is granted.

Returning to public participation, because of the many ways in which people can get planning permission, the new system will be difficult to navigate not only for the public, who may want to have a say, but for developers, who will have to choose between three or four routes—we do not yet know how many—of getting planning permission. That seems unhelpful.

To emphasise what my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood said earlier, we learned from the Minister on Thursday that there are no time limits, so if a developer gets permission in principle through a mechanism about which we are not entirely clear at this point, it is possible that nothing will have happened 15 years down the line. What incentive does the system offer for a developer to build once it has permission in principle? It could simply do as developers do at the moment and hold on to pieces of land until the market improves. According to its market model, a developer may want to build 400 houses in a neighbouring borough and hold on to the piece of land until there is a downturn or something of that nature. The National Housing Federation wrote specifically about the proposal that it

“should be time-bound to incentivise delivery.”

We totally agree. Without time limits, we cannot see how the change will speed up planning and the delivery of new housing, which is what we all want. Planning is one thing, but getting houses built is what is really important. We just do not see how the measure will achieve that end without some timeframes.

I want to speak in support of paragraph (a) and also briefly on paragraph (b) proposed in amendment 285. It is incumbent on all of us, but in particular the Minister, given that it is his responsibility, to ensure that if additional burdens are placed on planning departments or a strong role is required from them to make these measures work, local authorities are given the resources to undertake that work. We know that they have had a 46% cut in funding in the last five years and that fees are not set at full cost recovery, so taxpayers make up the approximately £450 million needed to make planning departments function. A number of people have told us that this is a serious issue. It needs a serious response from the Government about how they are going to get the necessary resources into planning departments so that they can deal with planning well, respond quickly and easily to inquiries from the public and, critically, from developers, and turn round planning applications, technical details consent or anything that the new system requires of them both quickly and professionally. Without any measures in the Bill to tackle the lack of resources we cannot see how local authorities can respond in the way that the Minister expects.

[Chris Philp]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I will endeavour to be a model of brevity in opposing amendment 285—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] That is the most popular thing I have said so far.

I spent the five years prior to coming here running a business that financed residential development. I can tell the Committee that a grant of permission in principle is of great use to financing organisations in offering finance either to acquire land or to fund the professional fees associated with developing it. Even though not all the technical details will have been signed off at that stage, it will give both funders and the prospective developer a huge amount of confidence and a measure of certainty that a particular kind of development scheme can be brought forward. As such it will be extremely valuable and will undoubtedly expedite the process of development.

On the question of technical details raised by the hon. Lady the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood, I think it is reasonable that they are dealt with later. If we insist on them being dealt with up front, there will be significant associated costs that may deter acquirers of land or developers from proceeding with a project. If the subsequent technical investigation uncovers problems such as bats, newts or Japanese knotweed, developments can be fine-tuned to address those issues in granting detailed consent.

The hon. Lady mentioned Roman forts. My father is an archaeologist and has encountered many Roman forts in his career. It is generally possible to reconfigure developments to avoid causing disruption: for example, my father was involved with a Roman fort in Dover that was going to be destroyed by a road, and they simply lifted up the road to go over the Roman remains. There are always ways of changing developments to resolve whatever problem subsequent technical investigations uncover. If the hon. Lady looks in the basement of many buildings in the City, she will see Roman remains that have been preserved.

Housing and Planning Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Debate between Chris Philp and Roberta Blackman-Woods

Thursday 3rd December 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

Indeed. As we will discuss under later amendments, this part of the Bill sets up a whole new bureaucracy and a whole new quango, and greatly adds to the administrative burdens on not only housing associations but local authorities, which is extraordinary given that they are having their budgets cut so substantially.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

The hon. Lady says that few housing associations are using the voluntary powers they already possess to set higher rents. Does she not agree with the principle behind the clause, which is that people on higher incomes should either be charged more or find other accommodation, so that this scarce resource—social rented housing—can be concentrated on the people who need it most?

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I have answered the hon. Gentleman’s point more than once this morning. I remind him, his hon. Friends and the Minister that the Government consulted on this scheme; they consulted people who know something about running housing associations and local authorities, and only a quarter of the respondents agreed with the principle of very high earners who live in taxpayer-subsidised housing paying higher rents. Government Members have to engage with that point.

Only a few respondents to the consultation agreed with even a discretionary scheme. The consultation, in case Members are not aware, was on higher rents being charged at income levels of £60,000, £80,000 and £100,000, and even at those levels most people thought there should not be a mandatory scheme, but that it should be left to the discretion of social housing providers.

Housing and Planning Bill (Tenth sitting)

Debate between Chris Philp and Roberta Blackman-Woods

Tuesday 1st December 2015 Public Bill Committees

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

I shall do my very best to speed along, Sir Alan. However—[Laughter]—as we come to amendment 146, it may seem a little bit odd to start our discussion on the right-to-buy provisions, such as they are, by looking at what we think should be exempted. We are doing so to try to tease out from the Minister, in the absence of information elsewhere, exactly what he thinks should be covered under the right to buy, and what the exemptions should be. I hope that we can help the hon. Member for Peterborough—we always like to help him if at all possible—by stressing that this is largely a probing amendment that is designed to get more information into the public domain.

One of the main reasons why the Government wish to extend the right to buy is their desire to push up rates of home ownership. That is a valid aspiration, which the Opposition share, but we have real concerns about how the right to buy will work in practice. We have been at some pains to emphasise that great care needs to be taken over how the new scheme will operate if it is not simply to afford an opportunity for some people to purchase a home at a discount, at the expense of the availability of social housing for those who are in desperate need. That is especially important because, as the Joseph Rowntree Foundation estimates, there will be 75,000 fewer low-cost homes to let over the next five years if the homes built to replace those that are sold are made available on a different tenure. We will come back to that several times this morning.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

Is the hon. Lady not comforted by the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton a few moments ago that where a housing association believes that a property is of a tenure type that is difficult to replace, the property may be exempted? Does the hon. Lady not share my concern that the nine exclusions proposed in amendment 146 would unfairly deny people who live in those tenure types the important right to buy their own home?

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I am trying to tease out how the homes should be replaced and whether replacement will be on a similar tenure; that is specifically the subject of later amendments. Asking for exemptions is also about trying to tease out where portability, in terms of the discount, would operate and how practical the portability would be. Again, that is the subject of a later amendment, so perhaps we can come back to those specific issues.

Since we started to scrutinise the Bill in Committee, five housing associations—L&Q, Sovereign, Riverside, Saffron Housing Trust and Thames Valley Housing—have been included in a pilot scheme. Sadly, details of the exact nature of the pilots appear to be lacking, so the amendment is really trying to tease out what will be covered. Interestingly, those very same questions are being asked by some of the housing associations and their representatives. The Committee had a note from PlaceShapers, which says:

“Our members have confirmed that the following list covers the type of stock or tenancy they would expect their Boards to consider exempting and would thus decline applications from tenants to purchase their own home: Homes for older persons… Supported housing units… Key worker housing…Units that form part of major regeneration schemes already under way… Rural settlements… Homes built for charitable purposes without Government grant and homes provided through S.106 agreements requiring stock to be kept as social housing in perpetuity”—

and on it goes. The point I am making to Government Members is that they can attack Opposition Members for proposing this fairly long list of exemptions, but we are not actually proposing them on our own. We are doing so in the light of what has already been put in the public domain by the housing associations themselves. They are not clear exactly what can be exempted from the right-to-buy provisions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

Amendment 148 returns to a theme that we will rehearse a great deal this morning, and probably during the early part of the afternoon. We want to ensure that the replacement for any stock sold through the right to buy is of the same tenure as the original stock, located in the same local authority area and in line with assessed local housing need. We understand that the agreement is voluntary, and we understand what discretion means, but we want to discuss whether the Bill requires additional safeguards. I think that that is what the public would expect from us, as we have been charged with scrutinising the legislation. Several of those who gave evidence to the Committee highlighted the fact that their main concern about extending the right to buy had to do with the need for greater reassurance about what replacement housing will actually mean.

The concern underpinning all of this is that, if the Committee is not careful about what it agrees to, there will be further depletion of the social housing stock, given the uncertainty about what plans for one-to-one replacement would actually mean and whether they would bear any fruit.

[Chris Philp]

Does the hon. Lady not agree that we should trust social housing providers to make their own judgments about what replacement is most appropriate, rather than seek to impose restrictions? Does she not further agree that specifying the same tenure in proposed new paragraph (a) of her amendment might contradict proposed new paragraph (c), which uses the words:

“in accordance with assessed local…need”?

Those two things might be different.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

Let me reassure the hon. Gentleman that I will explain the different dimensions of the amendment in a moment.

There are great uncertainties about whether replacement will work in practice. Interestingly, the point was brought to the Committee’s attention by an Institute for Fiscal Studies report—if Members do not want to go to the report itself, they can look at the briefing done for the Committee by the House of Commons Library. The IFS talks about the risks and uncertainties that accompany the right to buy, and I emphasise again to the Minister and other Government Members that these concerns are felt not just by Opposition Members. The IFS points to real uncertainties about replacement, and it is interesting to read what it says:

“Given this uncertainty, and the coalition’s less-than-impressive record in delivering replacement…housing under the…Right to Buy, there is a risk that these policies will lead to a further depletion of the social housing stock”.

It is not the Opposition saying that, although I am quoting it for the benefit of the Committee’s deliberations. When organisations such as the IFS look at what has happened previously on replacement, what they see is

“the coalition’s less-than-impressive record”.

[Chris Philp]

I conveniently have to hand the figures for council housing starts in the five years of the coalition Government. There were 14,310. In the previous five years of the Labour Government, there were only 2,500—one seventh of the level.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

If the hon. Gentleman is going to quote statistics, he has to look at the social rented stock that was delivered by housing associations during that period.

[Chris Philp]

rose—

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

The hon. Gentleman is getting very excited. We can come in a moment to the number of homes for social rent—

[Chris Philp]

rose—

Housing and Planning Bill (Fifth sitting)

Debate between Chris Philp and Roberta Blackman-Woods

Thursday 19th November 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

The picture is quite complicated, but Shelter has been helpful in the evidence it provided. I am not sure whether I have its document in front of me to show the hon. Gentleman, but in its detailed analysis in “Starter Homes: will they be affordable?” it gives a detailed breakdown for each local authority area. I found that helpful, so he might like to look at it. In that we can see that, across the country, there are a number of areas in which the pricing regime will make the homes unaffordable for many people.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady accept that the analysis to which she is referring is based on the £450,000 and £250,000 figures, which are ceilings? Many starter homes will be delivered at far lower prices than those caps.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

Yes, but those are the figures that the Government put on the face of the Bill, so those are the amounts that we want to refer to. I expect that in many areas developers will seek to build starter homes up to the level of the cap, but the hon. Gentleman is of course right that in some areas they might not. We will look at the evidence in a couple of years’ time to see how many homes are being built below the level of the cap.

Shelter is throwing out a serious challenge to the Government. Its analysis shows that the starter home programme will not help the majority of people on the new minimum wage, and in many areas in England it will not help people on average earnings either. Shelter considered how the policy will affect different household types in each local authority area in England, and on a range of different salaries, to assess whether they would be able to afford a starter home. It concluded that starter homes for families earning average wages will be unaffordable in more than half—58%—of local authorities across the country in 2020. Perhaps that addresses the point made by the hon. Member for Peterborough. Families on the new minimum wage, which the Government call the national living wage, will be able to afford a starter home in only 2% of authorities. Single people on low or average wages can more or less forget it, as they will be unable to afford a starter home in the majority of local authority areas.

London, the south-east and the east contain the largest number of areas in which affordable starter homes could be built under the scheme because of the high demand, yet they are the least affordable. Shelter concludes that starter homes will primarily help those on higher than average incomes and couples without children. That might be the Government’s intention. However, if they intend to help those earning more than the average income and couples without children, they should make that clear. That begs the question, which we were considering earlier: how are all the other categories of people supposed to get on to the housing ladder?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

That is a very revealing comment. It is hard to find any evidence to back up that point. As I said—

[Chris Philp]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

In a minute, but first I will deal with this intervention. I pointed out earlier and this morning that although the number of social homes to rent increased from a very low number under the last Labour Government—in 2010-11, we delivered about 40,000 affordable, genuinely affordable, homes—in fact, last year only 10,000 homes for social rent were delivered. I would not have thought that to be too many homes by anybody’s estimation. I do not have the figures before me for the constituency of the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton, but I am happy to find them. I think he will find that there are a great many people desperate for social housing on council waiting lists around the country, amounting to way more than 10,000 more properties.

In my own area, we have an excess of 8,000 people on the council waiting list, so 10,000 homes across the country does not even begin to scratch the surface. To answer his point directly, do I think that we have concentrated too much on affordable homes for rent? No, I do not. We need affordable homes across all tenures. Should we do more to provide affordable homes to buy? Absolutely. If that is the point that he was making, I agree totally.

[Chris Philp]

That is the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton was making: we need to focus on homes to buy as well as to rent. The evidence for which the hon. Lady asked is this: 86% of people aspire to own their own home, yet owner-occupation is declining. That is the evidence, and that is why the starter home measures are so important. That is why they were in the manifesto, and that is why that commitment is now being delivered.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I think that we understand that this is a manifesto commitment to increase the number of people who can access home ownership. We totally agree with that. We all want those who can to buy their own property, and we want to help people access home ownership. However, in doing so, we must ensure that those who cannot buy their own home, for whatever reason, are not crowded out of the market, and that those who would provide homes for people in such circumstances can still provide those homes. The evidence before us suggests that we are failing to deliver affordable —genuinely affordable—social rented homes for the people who need them, as well as failing to deliver homes in other tenures. It is as well as, not instead of.

Housing and Planning Bill (Fourth sitting)

Debate between Chris Philp and Roberta Blackman-Woods

Thursday 19th November 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

Indeed, but I could be supportive if the hon. Gentleman wanted to introduce one on that basis.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

I just had some figures brought over to me to answer the question about council housing and housing association builds over the last couple of Parliaments. I am sure that the hon. Lady will join me in welcoming the fact that taking council housing and housing association starts together, in the last Parliament, 2010 to 2015, there were 153,000 starts in those tenures, compared with 149,000 in the last four years of the last Labour Government. The current Administration have built more council and housing association units, when taken together. I am sure that the hon. Lady will join me in welcoming that.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

The difficulty is that I have tried to separate out the number of homes built for social housing and at genuinely affordable rents, rather than including, as the tables do, figures on housing built at 80% of market rents, which I think a lot of us would accept are unaffordable for many.