Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Clive Betts and Nick Boles

Monday 30th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Nick Boles]

We should always be willing to learn from other countries, but we should also not talk down our own achievements. More than two thirds of all new houses are built on brownfield sites, but we can always do more and that is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has proposed housing zones, with a package of £400 million, to help put in place local development orders on brownfield land so that development comes through more quickly.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

I have referred previously to paragraphs 47 onwards of the national planning policy framework, which mean that sites have to be deliverable and viable to be included in a local plan. Many developers are objecting to brownfield sites being included and want greenfield sites to be substituted instead because of this requirement. As a result of the package to which the Minister has just referred, how many of the sites excluded from local plans by paragraph 47 requirements will now be able to be included by local authorities?

[Nick Boles]

I take this opportunity briefly to apologise to the hon. Gentleman for having referred to him during a debate last week when he was not present, and for not having given him notice of that—

[Mr Betts]

And does the Minister apologise for what he said, as well?

[Nick Boles]

I do not apologise for what I said, but I apologise for referring to the hon. Gentleman.

To answer his question, of course we do not collect a central database of every single brownfield site in the land and how they are affected by very recent policy announcements. It is very clear that local authorities need to do everything they can to make sure that sites are viable by setting section 106 agreements and the community infrastructure levy at an appropriate level. Secondly, there is no way that a developer can argue that a site is not viable for development unless they have clear public evidence to demonstrate why it is financially unviable.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Clive Betts and Nick Boles

Monday 25th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Nick Boles]

I understand that the local plan submitted by Leeds council is now under examination. That process will test whether the provisions for infrastructure are adequate to support the level of development the council has decided it needs. He and his constituents will have every opportunity to put their case as to why they need investment in more infrastructure to support proposed development.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

I am sure the Minister will agree that one of the important principles for achieving sustainable development is the brownfield first policy contained in the core planning policies and principles of the NPPF. I think the Minister is also aware that developers are using paragraph 47 of the NPPF to claim that brownfield sites are not deliverable because they are not viable, which is causing authorities to look at more and more greenfield sites for their five-year housing supply. Does the Minister agree that that effectively undermines the brownfield first policy in the NPPF? What is he going to do about it?

[Nick Boles]

I have the greatest respect for the hon. Gentleman, the Chair of the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government, who is knowledgeable about all these subjects, but I do not share his concern that the position is somehow being undermined. The NPPF is clear that brownfield land that is of low environmental quality should be preferred. That is a better policy than that of the Government he supported, which favoured all brownfield land, including back gardens, and led to garden grabbing on a scale we had never before seen.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Clive Betts and Nick Boles

Monday 18th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Nick Boles]

My hon. Friend is aware that that application has been called in by the Secretary of State. I therefore cannot comment on it specifically, but I can reassure him that the Secretary of State, in all planning decisions, takes into account economic benefits, and all other impacts on the economy and the environment.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

Les Sturch, the head of planning and development at Sheffield city council, has drawn to my attention what I assume is an unintended consequence of chapter 6, paragraph 47 of the national planning policy framework, which requires local authorities to identify in their local plans a five-year supply of sites that are deliverable and viable. The problem is that developers say that, in the current circumstances, most brownfield sites are not viable. That forces the local authority to go back and identify far more greenfield sites for development than the local community wants. That is happening all around the country. Will the Minister meet me and officers from Sheffield to discuss how that situation could risk completely undermining the Government’s “brownfield first” policy?

[Nick Boles]

I would be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman, who is Chair of the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government and very knowledgeable on the subject. There is no point putting into a plan sites that have no chance of being developed. A balance needs to be struck on whether they are potentially viable.

Growth and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Clive Betts and Nick Boles

Monday 17th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Nick Boles]

I have very little time and I need to get on to clause 1. I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way right now.

The autumn statement a few weeks ago included another round of £350 million for the regional growth fund and a new local infrastructure fund worth up to £470 million. I hope my right hon. Friend and my other right hon. and hon. Friends will understand that it is not primary legislation that will ensure that local authorities plan properly, as they should, for infrastructure; it is money. Part of the way to get that money is to plan positively for development, because that development will bring the community infrastructure levy and the new homes bonus.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Boles]

I have good news for my hon. Friend. I had discussions with the Local Government Association just a few days ago. Because of the proposal on which we are consulting, which is that it should be two years of data about the timeliness of decisions on major applications, it will become clear, probably publicly but certainly to my officials and to officials in the Local Government Association, which authorities are heading into the danger zone, even after probably only six months’ data.

I have had discussions with the Local Government Association, with full support from the Department and my officials putting an arm round those authorities that are beginning to get into the danger zone and helping ensure that they get out before the axe falls—before the designation becomes real. It is my genuine hope that no local authority gets caught by the provision, because no local authority consistently fails to discharge its responsibilities.

[Mr Betts]

Has the Minister now solved the problem with the keeping of statistics on planning performance agreements, which could twist what a local authority does? Will he take that into account and do it retrospectively?

[Nick Boles]

The statistics currently capture planning performance agreements that are agreed before an application is submitted, but not those that are agreed after. We will be altering that to ensure that the data are more accurate. Where we cannot do that, what we can do, which I think is just as good, is take submissions from local authorities on why the data might not present a fair picture of their performance, and we will of course take fully into account the fact that the data might not be absolutely conclusive for those submissions in year one.

Finally, new clause 12, tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), is incredibly well intentioned, but we believe that the national planning policy framework and the local plans already contain all the emphasis on sustainability, environmental quality and protection of rights and heritage for future generations—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Betts]

I put to the right hon. Gentleman a point that has already been made very effectively: why, then, are the Government targeting only the social and affordable housing element of section 106 agreements? What about the rest of the obligations on developers? Do they not cause a problem too? In an earlier debate—I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman was present—when challenged by his colleagues behind him about the need to ensure proper infrastructure, the Minister talked about the need for the community infrastructure levy to provide the resources to ensure that that infrastructure was provided. If developers have a problem with viability, why is he championing the community infrastructure levy and 106 agreements that are currently providing infrastructure for non-housing elements while targeting the housing element of 106 agreements? Why is that necessary? Again, we have had no answer from him.

On the housing element, I want to return to a point that we discussed in the Select Committee the other day and which my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods) just made very strongly. I refer to the crucial issue of mixed housing developments. I would have thought that there would be cross-Chamber support for the idea of mixed housing developments. We do not want people in owner-occupied houses in one place and a smaller number of rented homes completely segregated on a different site. We need mixed schemes where everyone, irrespective of their tenure, can live together side by side. I thought that was the Government’s policy.

We had an interesting discussion about that in the Select Committee. We asked the Minister why, if £300 million was to be made available to provide additional rented homes in order to compensate for the ones lost under section 106 agreements, those properties could not be built on the same sites as the schemes in question in order to increase their viability. As I understand it, that is precisely what my hon. Friend’s amendment 46 would do, so will the Minister respond favourably to it? It would simply put into the Bill the idea that he seemed to welcome in the Select Committee the other day. I look forward to his response.

I turn to amendment 44, which was also tabled by my hon. Friend. The right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) made the point about viability and whether we can trust developers when they say that a scheme is not viable. By what criteria will they and the Secretary of State be judged if a scheme is changed and fewer affordable houses are built? The Minister must accept that 106 agreements are not often backroom deals made in isolation between council officials and developers; they are often out there and scrutinised not merely by councillors, but by the public affected by them.

Communities want to know what will be built in their areas and whether rented homes will be available for people who cannot afford to buy. They will be very suspicious if, without such criteria in the Bill, the Secretary of State seems to be doing a deal behind the scenes—whether or not it is called the Planning Inspectorate—which results in the withdrawal of the affordable homes that they thought were being built, and to which they and their families would have access, and different amounts of affordable housing, if any, being agreed for the site. That is why it is important that the Minister states upfront the criteria that will be used to change the affordable housing component that communities will assume will be negotiated for their areas.

Finally, the lack of rigorous time scales in the proposals is worrying. My hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham mentioned the possibility of revisiting the issue after one year and reinstating higher levels of affordable housing for any scheme. That is a really important point, because the worry that some people have about the proposal is that developers will simply say that schemes are not viable; renegotiate them so that less affordable housing has to be provided; and sit on the land and wait till times become more propitious—when they can sell the houses for more, sell more houses and provide fewer for rent. In the meantime nothing will happen. In other words, instead of a stimulus to growth, the proposals could defer development and increase the profitability of the schemes so that fewer affordable or rented houses are produced. The Minister needs to address that worry and include some proper time periods, as my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham has suggested.

[Nick Boles]

Everybody is keen for me to explain things and reassure them, but they have not given me a great amount of time in which to do so. I hope you will understand, Madam Deputy Speaker, if I canter through my remarks pretty quickly.

I am a simple soul and do not have a lot of truck with ideology. I want to build more houses now, and I want the absolute certainty that they will go up, rather than a vague, tenuous hope of even more houses at a possible future date. Our discussions in Committee and this evening have persuaded me even more of the merit of this clause, and I am redoubled in my enthusiasm.