Housing Targets: Planning System

Debate between Esther McVey and Gordon Henderson

Tuesday 15th November 2022 Westminster Hall

[Esther McVey (in the Chair)]

I will call Gordon Henderson to move the motion and then the Minister to respond. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates.

[Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered housing targets and the planning system.

This is not the first time I have raised the subject of overdevelopment in my constituency. In the last 12 years, I have done so on a number of occasions, so I will not repeat what I have said before, except to emphasise the problems that excessive housebuilding has caused my constituents. Our local roads are congested and cannot cope with the level of traffic generated by the new housing. My constituents struggle to get a GP appointment, because there are not enough doctors to service the thousands of extra people who have moved to the area. Many of our local schools are over-subscribed, and new arrivals struggle to get school places for their children.

The huge increase in housing development in my area has been driven by my local authority, Swale Borough Council, attempting to meet the top-down housing targets imposed by the Government. In past debates, successive Housing Ministers have insisted that the Government do not impose targets, and that it is up to local authorities to determine housing growth after consultation with the Planning Inspectorate, which of course is a Government quango. An example of the outcome of such consultation is that Swale Borough Council submitted its most recent local plan, which had a housing land allocation for 776 homes per year, only for the Planning Inspectorate to reject the proposal and insist that the figure should be increased to 1,048 per year.

The irony is that, despite the massive increases in housing in Swale over the past 30 years—17,000 new homes have been built in that time—developers have not once matched even the 776 figure in the past 10 years. The problem with nationally imposed mandatory housing targets is that they are arbitrary and lack supportable evidence of need. Officers and members of Swale Borough Council believe that targets should be set at local and sub-regional levels, and should take into account an area’s ability to deliver them. They believe that the housing delivery test, buffers, housing action plans and housing targets have served only to increase pressure on local authorities, rather than to deliver more housing.

Education Funding

Debate between Esther McVey and Gordon Henderson

Tuesday 4th June 2019 Westminster Hall

[Gordon Henderson]

I agree; I will come to the national funding formula later, if my hon. Friend will bear with me.

I will continue my thread about illiteracy, which is a huge problem in my constituency. We had several skills companies in my area, which taught adults basic literacy in preparation for the vocational training that they provided. Because of the new funding system for skills providers, however, which discriminates against constituencies such as mine, one of those companies has had to close and another is struggling financially.

The Secretary of State’s letter boasted that in Kent, an extra 27,300 school places have been added since 2010, including the establishment of 10 free schools, and that a further 13 new schools have been cleared to be created in coming years. Again, however, that statistic hides an inconvenient truth, which is that many schools in my constituency are bursting at the seams, particularly the secondary schools in Sittingbourne, where an already dire situation is being made worse by the ludicrous independent appeals procedure.

One of my local schools has a published admission number of 285 pupils, but because of the shortage of places in Sittingbourne secondary schools, and following a request from Kent County Council, the head agreed to increase this year’s intake to 330. In turn, Kent County Council committed to fund the building of a new classroom block to accommodate the extra 45 children. During the building work, which is due to start in the summer, four classrooms will have to be decommissioned, but despite that, the school was confident that it would be able to accommodate the additional pupils.

Then the independent appeals panel stepped in. It heard appeals from 53 parents who wanted to send their children to that school. Bizarrely, it upheld all 53 appeals, so the school is faced with finding accommodation for a total intake of 383 pupils. The knock-on effect of such a dramatic increase is horrendous. The head’s first question is, if there was room to build additional accommodation—which, incidentally, there is not—who would fund it? Nobody has been able to answer that question yet. Kent County Council has made it clear that it will not borrow any more money to fund the building of additional schools or buildings. Quite rightly, it believes that the Government should fund those schools via the basic need grant system.

Other secondary schools in Sittingbourne face a similar situation of demand outstripping the number of available places. That problem was brought about by the rapid population increase in my constituency, which was driven by Government housing targets that were imposed without any additional Government funds being allocated to ensure that the necessary infrastructure was put in place first. It is all very well for the Department to claim that 27,340 additional school places have been created in Kent, but few of those places are in the areas of most need. Frankly, without the funding to provide more schools where places are needed, the statistic is meaningless.

On funding, the Secretary of State talks in his letter about the 2019-20 national funding formula allocation to Kent and explains that the county will get £3,793 per primary pupil and £4,941 per secondary pupil. Those figures graphically illustrate the historical underfunding of Kent schools, which is put into sharp relief by the comparable funding figures in Greenwich, which are £4,907 per primary pupil and £6,698 per secondary pupil. Hon. Members might point out that Greenwich is an outer London borough with areas of deep social deprivation, but I have news for them: Kent is not entirely made up of affluent areas such as Sevenoaks and Tunbridge Wells. Many areas, particularly in Thanet and Swale where my constituency is, have council wards with social deprivation as deep as any found in outer London.

To take another example, I am sure that hon. Members agree that Essex is a comparable county to Kent; indeed, we are neighbours, albeit separated by the Thames estuary. Essex is due to receive £3,843 per primary pupil and £5,018 per secondary pupil. I appreciate that they are not huge differences individually, but they make a big difference to school budgets collectively. Why does the Department think that Kent pupils cost less to teach than those in Essex? They do not—indeed, the reverse is often the case—but the difference highlights a long-standing funding deficiency for Kent schools. The figures speak for themselves.

[Ms Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is talking so much truth there. It is not just in Kent; it is not just in Essex; it is in Cheshire, and across the country. We are crying out for more funding for our schools. We had £1.3 billion, and that was good. That is why I pledge the £4 billion more that we need for our schools, so that the education standards that my hon. Friend is talking about are the same for everybody throughout the country.

[Gordon Henderson]

I agree with my right hon. Friend. As a proud man of Kent, and a Kent MP who is doing the best for my constituency, I want to focus on Kent, but I understand that she will have problems in her constituency as well.

The figures speak for themselves. In terms of schools block funding, Kent is ranked 139 out of 152 local authorities. How can that be right or fair, particularly when we consider Kent’s location, so close to London, with all the cost pressures that that entails? As we move towards implementation of the national funding formula, Kent will still be 7% below the national average, while inner London boroughs will be 32% above the national average, which means that per pupil funding in inner London will be £1,774 more than in Kent.

That leads me on to another problem that faces many Kent schools, including those in my own area—one that I have raised before in this House and will no doubt raise again and again, until something is done about it. London boroughs are buying up or renting homes in our area into which they place homeless families, many of whom have special social and educational needs. Although the London boroughs pay the housing costs for the families, it is Kent social services and Kent schools that are expected to meet the costs of providing the social and educational help that they need. London boroughs are also increasingly placing cared-for children into Kent, once again without providing the financial support needed to look after and educate those children.

Let me make it very clear that schools in Kent willingly accept their responsibility and meet the financial commitment needed to educate those children. However, their benevolence is putting an additional strain on already stretched school budgets. The strain is particularly acute when it comes to providing special educational needs support. There is already severe pressure on the high needs funding block, and that is being made worse by the ever-increasing number of children in Kent who require SEN support.

The letter from the Secretary of State presented a rosy picture of education funding that simply does not reflect what is actually happening in our schools, nor the problems they face.