Building Safety (Remediation of Unsafe Cladding etc) Bill

Fleur Anderson Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 27th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

I too pay tribute to the families of those who died in the Grenfell fire, which we will never forget. It scarred not only those in that area of London, but all Londoners. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) for his excellent speech, for the campaigning he has done and for standing up for his community, and for his work to ensure that the Bill is as good as it is.

I welcome and support the Bill, although I wish it had been introduced by the previous Government, years ago. Unsafe cladding is a big issue across the country. The UK Government track 4,724 high-rise buildings with unsafe cladding. Some 39% of those are now fully remediated, and 15% have works under way, but 46% are still waiting for works to start. There are more than 1,000 such buildings in London, several of which are in my constituency of Putney.

Let me begin by thanking the Minister and her team, as well as former Ministers, for their constructive engagement throughout the development of the Bill. They have taken the time to listen to me. I have shown case studies of what is happening to my constituents to Ministers and asked, “Would the Bill work for them?” I am so glad to see so many ways in which it will. The Bill goes a great way, in many ways, to address problems, and to hold to account the developers who built the buildings and who, in so many cases, seem to have been able to walk away, delay, obfuscate and make things really difficult, when they should have stepped up and said, “There were these issues. These are our buildings, and we will work to rectify them.”

The Bill represents a significant step, and builds on the remediation acceleration plan in putting safety, accountability and those affected first. For too long, many leaseholders have been trapped in homes that they cannot remortgage and, in some cases, do not even feel safe living in. They bought their homes in good faith and followed the rules, but they have found themselves paying the price for failures elsewhere in a system that they trusted. The human impact of the delays cannot be overestimated, as many Members have said. I have spoken to constituents who are not able to start or increase the size of a family, take up jobs or care for relatives across the country because they are stuck in their home and unable to move on with their life. They have experienced prolonged disruption and financial uncertainty, and huge levels of stress.

I welcome these measures. The Bill gives regulators stronger powers to hold to account those who delay or obstruct remediation, and introduces a statutory duty to remediate. It replaces cosy deals and voluntary commitments, as so many Ministers in the former Government promised to. Time and again, I came to the Chamber, with many other Members who are here, to be told, “We will take action. It will be done. I have got the developers round the table, and they are all going to do it—don’t you worry”, but that did not happen at all. No more of that.

[Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a really strong speech about the need for this Bill. Does she agree that this action is long overdue? Residents in Crown Heights in my constituency have waited for years—far too long. They have been in financial uncertainty, and uncertainty about their safety, and they deserve a clear timeline of when their remediation works will be completed. Residents like those in Crown Heights will be served better in the future by action that will be delivered through this Bill.

[Fleur Anderson]

I absolutely agree. My hon. Friend’s constituents, my constituents and the constituents of all Members will be watching this debate, half feeling glad that all this is happening, and half hoping that it actually will happen. In that respect, one part of the Bill I really welcome is that a remediation compliance plan has to be published on a website, openly available and proactively shared with residents. The fact that that even has to be said is testament to how frustrating it has been for residents to try to find information. Instead of them asking, “Who has built this building? Who are the responsible parties? What are they going to do? Where is the plan? Will I be moved out? When is it going to happen? When can I get on with my life?”, a plan has to be published, put on a website and proactively shared. I really welcome that.

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

The hon. Lady talks about the need and desire to end the culture of cosy deals. I completely agree, but is not PAS 9980 itself a cosy deal done by the former Secretary of State, Michael Gove, as a compromise with building developers, to let them off from so many of the financial obligations that they would have had if they had to remediate buildings to the standard at which they should have been built? Does this Bill not turn that cosy deal into law?

[Fleur Anderson]

I have been following this issue closely. As well as EWS1 forms and the question of who fills them in, developers marking their own homework to any degree causes problems in the system. Many Members will be looking at the Bill as it progresses through this House and the other place to see how we can strengthen it even further. Measures may be put into the Bill in all good faith, but in practice, there may not be enough people inspecting buildings, so there may be huge delays in the system. We do not want those people to want to minimise the amount of work done and keep the delays going.

I welcome the fact that building owners who fail to act could face fines of £500,000 and even criminal prosecution. Where owners refuse to do the work, Homes England will have the backstop powers to step in and ensure remediation is finally carried out, with the costs falling on those responsible, rather than the leaseholders. The measures in the Bill will help accelerate the resolution of historical safety defects, require manufacturers of unsafe building products to contribute to putting things right, and ensure that those affected have a clearer route to redress.

For many people, the cladding scandal is not a historical issue, but a daily reality. Throughout this scandal, I have found out all the layers of poor regulation in building works. For many homes and developments in Putney, not only has the cladding been unsafe, but many other parts of the building have been unsafe as well. In looking at the cladding, we have also found missing or inadequate fire stopping, inadequate compartmentation, poorly installed cavity barriers, defective balconies and water ingress. In a couple of the developments I have been in, I have watched water flowing down through electrical cupboards. That shoddy building work and the way that developers seem to have been able to get away with it should also be looked at, although not in this Bill. This Bill needs to be specific, and we need to get on with it, but other questions are being asked as a result of this process.

My residents have had to find out a lot more about whole developments and how they work; about their managing agents and how they should be working for them, but in many ways are not; about waking watches; and about non-communication by those who are meant to communicate about other defects in their buildings. They have had to become experts in inspections and how they work. They have had to work with the fire service themselves, because they are the people who are involved with all of these different things. I have been to meeting after meeting that residents have called, or that I have called, to try to get answers. It really should not have been so hard—it should be far easier for residents and leaseholders to know what is going on in their building. That is why I really look forward to the upcoming leasehold and commonhold Bill, because in my constituency of Putney, Roehampton, Southfields and Wandsworth Town, I am still working with people whose lives continue to be disrupted years after these problems first emerged. Many of them are currently decanted and living in other places, and many are unable to rent, sell or remortgage. They struggle to obtain their EWS1 forms or—as has been mentioned by other Members—affordable insurance, and far too often, their service charges are also going up. They describe uncertainty, stress and frustration.

I want to draw the Minister’s attention to continuing delays by the Building Safety Regulator, which I have talked about before in a Westminster Hall debate. I have had three developments really affected by huge delays by the Building Safety Regulator; two of them have now been fixed, so I thank the Ministers very much for that, but I have one left, so I am going to raise it now. That is the heritage-listed stilt blocks on the Alton estate in Roehampton. They are really iconic—people come from all over the world to look at our stilt blocks. We are very proud of them, but living inside them is not so nice. They have mould, and they have really poor windows that let the water and the weather in. Residents have endured winter after winter waiting for replacement windows.

Although Wandsworth council approved and funded new windows and stairwell fire doors in September 2023, the introduction of the new building safety regime transferred responsibility for approving those works to the Building Safety Regulator, because those listed blocks are classified as high-rise residential buildings. The residents narrowly missed the approval window before the new arrangements came in, leaving them in limbo with the Building Safety Regulator and causing further delays for people who have already waited far too long. They have waited through the winters of 2023, 2024 and 2025, and now they are approaching yet another winter with these very cold windows. Residents say that when they put a radiator on, they might as well just be throwing money out of the window. It is an appalling situation, and I really hope that as a result of me raising it in the Chamber today, the Ministers will address it.

None of us wants to return to the failures of the past. Robust regulation is essential, and the whole purpose of reform is to ensure that safety comes first, but a system that leaves people in prolonged uncertainty is also failing them. As implementation of the Bill proceeds, I urge Ministers to continue examining how regulatory processes can be made more efficient without compromising safety, whether that is ensuring they have the right number of staff or that their systems are right—whatever it takes to make the system work. People should not be left waiting months or years for decisions when works are ready to proceed. Safety and speed are not mutually exclusive; we need to have both.

As I have said, I look forward to the commonhold and leasehold reform Bill, which is part of the package of exciting and strong new regulatory powers that are being introduced by the Government in a number of ways. The last Government could have done the same, but did not.

I support this Bill, and I hope that while making these reforms, we will continue to focus relentlessly on turning regulation into results for the people of Putney and people across the country.

Heathrow Airport Expansion

Fleur Anderson Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2026 Westminster Hall

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Heathrow airport expansion.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John, and I thank all my constituents in Putney who have written to me, attended public meetings and taken part in the recent consultation on Heathrow expansion. I am really grateful to have secured today’s debate, and for the opportunity to explain why the Mayor of London, so many London MPs and so many Londoners continue to oppose the enormous expansion of Heathrow, the third runway and all that comes with it. I am also grateful to the Prime Minister and the Minister for Aviation for engaging with the concerns that I and many others have raised.

The proposal on the table would significantly and adversely affect the health and wellbeing of 3 million people living near Heathrow, and there would be a 58% increase in flights. Under the expansion proposal, the number of flights would increase by 276,000 per year— 756 per day. This debate comes at an important moment in the decision-making process. It is only weeks since the Government’s consultation on the draft Heathrow expansion national policy statement closed on 1 September, and we are only days before Heathrow launches its own consultation on its expansion plans on 27 October. However, Heathrow is consulting on expansion before the Government have completed the policy framework that would govern it. That is the wrong way round.

Before taking a decision of such magnitude, we should ask a simple question: knowing what we know now, would Parliament make the same decision today as it was asked to make when the Airport Commission reported and made the proposal in 2015? I do not believe that it would. In 2015, the Airport Commission’s case rested on assumptions about jobs, growth, aviation demand, sustainable aviation fuel, carbon reduction and regional economic benefits, but many of those assumptions have now been blown apart and look considerably weaker, so I am going to whizz through eight major things that have changed since 2015. I will also talk about three important things that have not changed since then.

First, I am going to focus on the major central justification for expansion: the economic case, which I believe has collapsed. The Government’s own figures tell a very different story from the one we were told a decade ago. In 2015, the Airports Commission estimated that expansion could boost GDP by £20 billion to £23 billion. Earlier this year, supporters of expansion were still citing figures of around £13 billion. However, the Department for Transport’s appraisal in the HENPS document estimates a GDP increase of just 0.03% to 0.05% by the 2050s—the equivalent of roughly £900 million to £1.5 billion over decades. The headline economic benefit used to justify Heathrow expansion has therefore fallen from £20 billion to perhaps little more than £1 billion. A project once sold as transformational would now deliver an impact that is barely measurable in the context of a £3 trillion economy. Those figures would raise serious questions for any major infrastructure project.

Secondly, I will talk about jobs. In 2015, the Airports Commission argued that a third runway could support about 70,000 new jobs across the UK by 2050, yet the Government’s own analysis suggests that many jobs would be relocated, rather than created. The DFT estimates that Heathrow expansion could draw around 21,400 jobs into the Heathrow area while contributing to the loss of approximately 15,200 jobs elsewhere in the UK. Moving jobs from one region to another is obviously not the same as creating new jobs.

Thirdly, the premise of spreading growth across the UK has changed. The Government cannot demonstrate that the growth generated would be genuinely additional. If jobs, passengers and investment are simply drawn from other airports and regions, Britain is not creating growth; it is just relocating it. Analysis by the New Economics Foundation suggests that Birmingham airport alone could lose around 7.5 million passengers annually by 2050, alongside approximately 9,500 jobs across the airport and its supply chains.

On devolution, No.10 North is going in one direction, but Heathrow expansion—being so concentrated on London and the south-east—would take us in another direction. At a time when Ministers rightly want to spread opportunity more evenly across the country, Heathrow expansion risks doing precisely the opposite.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a really powerful point. When he was the Mayor of Manchester, the Prime Minister warned many times that Heathrow expansion would suck the life out of regional airports. Does she agree that that is now more true than ever? The Prime Minister is also really into devolution. The Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, is also against Heathrow expansion, so the Prime Minister should listen to our Mayor, too.

[Fleur Anderson]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. The context of this debate has changed, which is my point; things have changed since 2015. We are looking again at devolution and growth across the country, and that changed context means that Heathrow expansion really needs to be looked at again, especially when the Mayor of London opposes it so strongly.

Fourthly, business travel has changed; the world that originally produced the case for the third runway no longer exists. Much of the demand modelling that was made then assumed ever-increasing business travel, but the pandemic accelerated a shift towards remote working and video conferencing, which has become permanent. Research highlighted by the New Economics Foundation shows that over the two decades before the pandemic, UK GDP grew by around 25% while business passenger numbers through UK airports showed virtually no growth at all. Today, business travel remains at a level that is about 20% below pre-pandemic levels, so the fundamental assumption about business travel no longer applies.

Fifthly, assumptions about sustainable aviation fuel have also changed. Sustainable aviation fuel was meant to be the great white charger that would come galloping over the hills, and that we would all be using it, and it would be the answer to all our climate problems. However, use of it is far less than predicted and is growing more slowly than predicted. It still accounts for far less than 1% of global aviation fuel use, and even under the Government’s own plans, around 90% of aviation fuel being used in 2030 would still be conventional fuel. In effect, Parliament is being asked to approve additional emissions now on the basis that future technology might solve the problem some time later, but that hope is really not being borne out.

Sixthly, the climate challenge has become far more acute. The Climate Change Committee’s conclusion in its report last month was clear—the UK does not currently have a credible pathway to reduce aviation emissions in line with net zero while accommodating Heathrow expansion. The Committee estimates that expansion would add an additional 2.4 million tonnes of carbon dioxide every year by 2050. That is roughly the equivalent of putting around half a million additional petrol-fuelled cars on Britain’s roads, all the emissions of Denmark, and greater than all the emissions of New Zealand.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)]

When I was first elected to Parliament nine years ago, we had people coming in and saying that new technology in aviation—electric planes, hydrogen planes and SAF—would significantly reduce emissions by 2025; I think that was the date given. None of that has happened. So all these assumptions are being made about new technology, which has not arrived and will not arrive. And we will break through our carbon budget just with increased aviation, particularly if we go ahead with a third runway at Heathrow. Does my hon. Friend agree?

[Fleur Anderson]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend and I thank him for that intervention, which speaks for the views of so many people, who are saying similar things. Indeed, a long time ago they were saying, “Look at the assumptions”, but now we have even more facts about those assumptions. We know what has actually come to pass and it is not all that was promised. At a time when households, motorists and businesses are being asked to reduce emissions, and after the summer of extreme weather that we have just had, why would we seek permission to increase emissions by so much?

Seventhly, our understanding of the health impact of noise has changed. Noise is not just an inconvenience; it is not something for people to get used to. We now know the impact of noise on many health conditions, including heart conditions and mental health conditions. This new knowledge about the impact of noise and what that impact will be on so many millions more people really should give the Government pause for thought. At the very least, the Government should commit to a full seven-hour night-flight ban between 11 pm and 6 am, with a pathway towards an eight-hour ban in the future. That respite would be so important for my constituents.

Eighthly, our expectations on air quality have changed. London is now the world’s largest clean-air zone. Putney’s high street used to be one of the most polluted in the country, but is now just the same as other high streets. That has been through a lot of hard policy and hard work. The ultra low emission zone covers every London borough and has reduced harmful nitrogen dioxide concentrations in central London by more than 50%. There has been heavy investment around improving our air quality, but this pollution from Heathrow airport would take us in the other direction.

Those are eight things that have changed since 2015, and I am sure that the Minister has listened very carefully to them all, but there are three things that have not changed. First, there is no funding plan for the surface transport to go along with the airport. I have been asking this question of Treasury Ministers ever since the proposals came out: “Will the Government fund the ground transport?” No. I have been asking Heathrow, “Will Heathrow fund the ground transport?” No, it will not. We have a massive gap here given the number of people who will travel to Heathrow airport. What will they travel on? I think that that will be a real millstone around the Government’s neck in future.

The second thing that has not changed is that Heathrow is the wrong location for a hub airport of this scale, for areas such as Northern Ireland—I know that we have a Member from Northern Ireland here—Liverpool, Manchester or Scotland. If anyone looked at the UK to decide where to put a hub airport, would they really put it next to one of the most densely populated parts of the whole country, or would they put it in the middle of the country? Would they locate it at an airport that already had two runways, such as Manchester’s?

The third thing that has not changed is that we do not have a national aviation strategy. Why are these decisions being made piecemeal? We have Gatwick, Luton and now Heathrow; where is the overall strategy for this? What is the decision-making behind it? Why do we not step back, look at what kind of aviation growth we want and need and where we want that to be, and then put this decision within that?

When the Airports Commission recommended Heathrow’s expansion in 2015, it asked the public and Parliament to accept a trade-off: to accept the noise, the environmental impacts and the disruption, because the rewards would be worth it. We were promised transformational economic growth across the United Kingdom, but, more than a decade later, we find a very different situation. Those foundations and assumptions are very weak. The projected economic gains are smaller than promised.

[Alex Sobel]

One concerning point that my hon. Friend did not raise is the number of houses that will be demolished and the number of people who will be displaced. Heathrow’s own assumption is fewer than 1,000, but that is really only the direct curtilage of the runway. Even a quite casual look at a map would show that the uninhabitable zone around Heathrow could be north of 5,000 homes.

Who would pay for those demolitions, and for the replacements and compensation for those homeowners? That is something, alongside ground transport, that nobody is willing to pay for. That is an exceedingly large amount of money, on top of the misery caused for all those people living there.

[Fleur Anderson]

I absolutely have all those communities in my mind. I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I am sure that we will hear more about that from other Members in this Chamber today who represent those communities that will be so directly affected.

That is what I mean about the national strategy; that would be a very big factor. How many communities will be affected? What is the trade-off here? Why—again—would anyone choose to put this hub airport next to London? It affects more people than all the other major hub airports across Europe. Five hub airports there have fewer people affected than this one, because it is so close to London. It is not in the place we would put it if we started from scratch.

As I was saying, Parliament was asked to accept a trade-off between the negative effects and the economic gains, but that whole equation has now crumbled. This is no longer the proposition that Parliament was presented with in 2015; it asks communities to accept many more dangers and harms, but for less-certain benefits.

Every day, my constituents live with the consequences of Heathrow. Asking them to accept more flights, more noise and more disruption requires a compelling national case, and we just do not have it here. If the growth is smaller, the jobs are less certain and the benefits are less widely shared than promised, the responsible thing to do is not to simply press ahead regardless; it is to stop and look again. I therefore hope that, when the time for a conclusion comes, the Minister will conclude that a third runway at Heathrow is not right for the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fleur Anderson]

I thank the Minister for stepping in. I recognise that he is a very responsible Minister in answering the local transport questions that have been raised time and again in this debate. I look forward to hearing answers about what the strategy will be. There is a huge hole in this project, although that is not the only thing to be concerned about.

I say to all those listening and to those who will be responding to the consultation, which will start on 27 October and continue until 22 December, that there are some concerns for those of us who live in London; we have heard the concerns about the noise and air pollution, and the very serious concerns about health. I welcome the respite information given by the Minister and the commitment to listen carefully to my constituents in Putney and others about the impact that any change to night flights would have, as well as the impact of all the proposed changes throughout the day. Although we do not yet know where the flightpaths will be, we know that far more people across London will be affected, so everyone who lives in London should respond to the consultation.

Those people who do not live in London should also respond and should look at the promises that are being made but not delivered—promises for economic growth across the country. There will not be “hope in every heart” or increased “growth in every postcode” from this development, although there will be a huge number of promises being made by Heathrow. Heathrow asked the Government whether it could increase its funding from airlines by £340 million to fund the promotion of this project, so people across the country should expect to be lobbied very hard about it. They should also expect huge figures to be discussed, but they should look into the assumptions behind them. To passengers, I say that there will be increased fares from this highly indebted company, because it will not be footing the bill.

I thank the Minister for looking into this—

[John McDonnell]

I just want to raise the issue of jobs again. In the Select Committee inquiry, one of the representatives who gave information about jobs said that there was a real concern that if the company flounders on the financing for this project, as it almost certainly will, it will come to Government—and if the Government say no, that will have an impact on the existing operation and will put it in jeopardy. Those Members who have constituents who work at Heathrow, as I do, are worried about the existing operation of the airport being threatened by the overreach with respect to the third runway. That is why we have always argued not for a bigger Heathrow, but for a better Heathrow.

[Fleur Anderson]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. I think that this debate has lifted the lid on some aspects of Heathrow as a company and that it is a highly indebted company and a very thin company with not a lot of financial backing to it. That puts at risk this whole project, which would come to the Government’s door if it fails, but it also puts jobs at risk, in addition to all the fear and worry of our constituents about the project going ahead. Will it just run into the sand and be a millstone around the Government’s neck?

This debate has also lifted the lid on the four tests. Can they really be met? That is a question that, as MPs concerned about the issue, we have asked many times. Unless the goalposts are being moved through the Heathrow expansion national policy statement so that they are so wide that anyone could meet the requirements, then, if the four tests are really going to be strong and serious tests, I cannot see how they can be met and how this project can go ahead. But I welcome the consultation that is coming up, and I encourage as many people as possible to get involved.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered Heathrow airport expansion.

Residential Buildings: Safety Remediation

Fleur Anderson Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2026 Westminster Hall

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison, and a delight to be called first. I congratulate the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) on securing this important debate. It is an important opportunity for me to raise with the Minister the many issues that my constituents are facing, which are similar to those that the hon. Member has just described. I welcome the Minister to her place as well. In having this debate, we remember all the victims and survivors of Grenfell.

I also thank all the people across the country who have been campaigning on cladding. I have talked about cladding many times and yet we are still here; that is my frustration. I thank the previous Minister for Building Safety, my hon. Friend the Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon), for her work on the remediation Bill. The Bill will place stronger legal duties on landlords and freeholders to remediate unsafe cladding and other fire safety defects within clear timeframes. That is very welcome. I am also grateful to her for meeting with me to discuss a number of long-running cases that I face in Putney, and I am glad that the new Minister will continue that important work.

I welcome the work of the remediation enforcement unit, the leadership of Lord Roe, and the work of the Building Safety Regulator, but I do not know why they are causing so many delays. I understand that 69 people work for the remediation unit and 500 people work for the Building Safety Regulator. I ask the Minister to look into their work and find out why they are not able to move so many developments ahead at the pace needed. There are long delays, a lack of clear guidance and a lack of connection between the different bodies involved, as I will demonstrate.

I would like to draw the Minister’s attention to several developments that are covered by the developer remediation contract with major developers such as Barratt Redrow and Taylor Wimpey. Despite those contractual commitments, many residents in those developments continue to face lengthy delays before remediation works, which have been agreed and funded, can begin or be completed. In some cases, fire safety remediation has been delayed because structural defects need to be addressed first—if there are problems with the cladding, that often comes with problems with the entire building. In other cases, residents are waiting for final fire risk assessments, EWS1 forms, remediation plans, contractor appointments, updated certifications, smoke extraction systems or the installation of cavity barriers. In all those cases, it is the people in the building who have to chase things up.

One development in my constituency has been waiting for Network Rail to give permission for rear elevation works. Network Rail did not respond to the many repeated efforts by the project team to obtain the permission, so a specialist contractor had to be hired just to get a response, which added a lot of cost for leaseholders.

In another case, many defects have been found at the same time in the buildings of a really large development. Hundreds of families have moved out and moved back, and they have just been told that they will all have to move out again in a rota system, all while fighting for remediation. They have been worried about the safety of their building—they had a waking watch and then they did not—and they cannot sell their homes if they want to, so they cannot get on with their lives. The impact on all those residents of six years of fighting is unacceptable. They cannot sell or remortgage their homes, and they live in uncertainty about when their buildings will finally be made safe.

This is affecting social housing tenants too. For some badly affected social housing in Wandsworth, specifically the Eliot and Wentworth blocks in Wandsworth town, tenants have been waiting for the Building Safety Regulator to give the go-ahead. They cannot have essential kitchen and heating system replacements or other work in the building done until the cladding remediation is completed. The council submitted the application on 31 March. The Building Safety Regulator’s statutory response time for works to existing higher-risk buildings is eight weeks, but it immediately asked for an extension, which is worrying in itself. Here we are in September, and the council is still waiting for a response. The works will take 18 to 24 months. The blocks are in serious need of that repair and the other repairs they are waiting for.

Although I recognise that developers have obligations under the developer remediation contract, my constituents are understandably asking what more can be done by the unit, by Ministers and by the Building Safety Regulator when progress stalls for different reasons. The challenge is not whether a developer has signed up to a contract, but how quickly remediation can move through the assessment, approval and delivery stages, especially when there are other bodies involved.

To conclude, can the Minister explain how the Government intend to support and expedite remediation at developments already covered by the developer remediation contract? What steps can be taken to remove barriers that delay works, to speed up assessments and approvals, and to ensure that developers deliver at pace? The new legislation is very welcome, but leaseholders trapped in affected buildings need to know that existing remediation programmes will also be accelerated. They deserve not only stronger rules for the future in the upcoming Bill, but urgent action on the buildings that have already waited far too long for remediation to be completed.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Tourism: Overnight Visitor Levy

Fleur Anderson Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jim McMahon]

The hon. Member raises two important points. On the first, the local impact assessment, this will be a devolved power, so it will be down to the mayoral or foundation authorities, as part of the consultation, to undertake an impact assessment at a local level, which will of course weigh up both the concerns and the benefits of this new levy. On the second point about levelling the playing field, which he makes very fairly, we could not have allowed a situation in which our guest houses and hotels are undercut by Airbnbs that are not included in the scheme. So this will apply right across the board, including to temporary or short-term lets, such as Airbnb and others.

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

I welcome the visitor levy and the investment it will bring to London’s visitor economy. Has the Minister been listening to London Councils, which wants 50% of the money raised in each borough to return to that borough, so that businesses know it is going back to the things that they want, such as cleaning Putney High Street?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Can I just help Members who have been here a long time? Looking at the Minister is not how we do it; questions to the Minister must go through the Chair, because that is how we try to keep a balance. Some Members have only been here a few years, I know, but please try to make this work.

Oral Answers to Questions

Fleur Anderson Excerpts

Monday 7th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sally Jameson]

Our ambition is to ensure that everywhere in England has or is in the process of establishing a strategic authority by the end of 2027, and that strategic authorities are in place everywhere by the end of 2028. It is right that we will not impose mayors on areas that do not want one, but we consider directly accountable mayors the strongest form of governance, which is why they have a different set of available powers and money. I would be happy to discuss that further with the hon. Lady. We will be setting out more information about our plans for devolution in the coming months.

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

10. What steps she is taking to support high streets in Putney.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Jim McMahon)]

To help restore high streets across the country, we have announced measures to tackle organised crime, cut business rates for pubs and stop the spread of vape shops and gambling outlets. Later this year, we will publish a high streets strategy setting out a longer-term plan for bringing life back into our town centres.

[Fleur Anderson]

I welcome all those on the Front Bench to their places, and I welcome back the Secretary of State. I thank the Minister for meeting me to talk about Putney high street. We love our high street in Putney; we want to see it thrive even more, and especially to open up empty shops. Will the Minister give hope to every high street by reviewing and reducing business rates, and by making the high street rental auction zone policy work more effectively by cutting unnecessary red tape and providing councils with the financial support they need to bring vacant properties up to a lettable standard?

Estate Regeneration

Fleur Anderson Excerpts

Wednesday 15th July 2026 Westminster Hall

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy) for securing this debate and giving me a chance to talk about the Alton estate in Roehampton in my constituency. It is also a pleasure to follow on from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who always brings wisdom and a flavour of Northern Ireland to every debate, which I fully appreciate.

The Alton estate in Roehampton in my constituency is home to over 13,000 people. It is one of the largest housing estates in the country, and it was built in 1954. It is a beautiful area; it is right next to Richmond Park, and it has some listed stilt blocks designed by Le Corbusier. It is a beautiful estate and a fantastic community. I am so proud to be the MP for Roehampton.

However, the estate has been run down for too long. It is an area of high deprivation and high health inequalities. From one side of my Putney constituency to the other, in the Alton, there is a 10-year life expectancy difference. It also suffers from poor transport links. The failure of the estate was recognised in 2010 by the then Conservative council of Wandsworth, which said, “Yes, we need to do some regeneration. We will look into this.” Since 2010, regeneration of the Alton estate has been discussed, but as yet it has not yet been delivered to the people of the Alton.

A plan was developed by the Conservative council, but it was unpopular and widely not liked. People very much wanted regeneration, but not that plan. The developer pulled out of the plan during covid—it pulled out from all the regenerations that it was doing in London—so in 2022, when the Labour council came in, it looked at it again. That Labour council became the developer, and that has been key to the success of the plan so far. It employed the HTA Design architecture company, which did a community co-design, stripped things back and talked to people, and has a good plan that the community really like.

The plan has a new library, a new dedicated youth centre —I was a bit obsessed with that part, because the stripping back of our youth clubs in the previous regeneration plan and the estate as a whole has been dreadful—and a new community centre. It will have a shopping parade, with shops—I spoke to Lidl only this week—that will have affordable fruit and vegetables, and two GP surgeries with the space to do preventative healthcare, which will build healthy living into the regeneration. It will have a new police hub, a new family hub and a nursery. It will demolish 177 substandard houses, which have been left to become run down, and build 615 new homes. In total, 473 new homes will be created, with priority given to Alton residents, who will watch them being built.

The largest regeneration ballot ever in this country was held last October, and the people on the Alton estate voted by 82% for the plan—that is an overwhelming majority, a real yes vote. That yes vote has unlocked an additional £60 million of funding from the Mayor of London. I am disappointed that then Conservative opposition campaigned against the Alton renewal plan.

A couple of months ago, we had local elections, and the Conservatives now run Wandsworth council by a vote of 29 councillors to 28—a small margin. I hope that the new council will understand how important the regeneration is to the people of the Alton and will go ahead with the plan, without doing a whole new round of consolation or lots of cutbacks that reduce it. I also hope that they will keep the amount of social housing in the plan. The GLA funding for social housing is £220,000 per unit, but it is £70,000 per unit for shared ownership, so it makes sense for the new Conservative administration to keep the high levels of social housing in the regeneration plan.

I recently met the new cabinet member for housing at Wandsworth council, and I made clear the residents’ strong view that the full plan is needed. He has not said that he will cut it back, but I am worried that he might. I hope that the Minister will lend full support to the Alton renewal project. To do anything less than the full plan will be to let down the residents on the Alton estate —they have waited for so long.

I would like to end by paying tribute to the Our Roehampton organisation, which provides amazing support and brings together brilliant people across the estate to create community social cohesion. To do anything other than fully go ahead with the plan would stop significant growth and opportunity for residents. The plan will provide a safer, healthier and revitalised Alton that everyone can be really proud of, and I hope the Minister will give it her full support.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison, and to take part in this debate about estate regeneration. I find myself in agreement with much of what I have heard so far. I thank the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy) for securing this important debate and for his opening speech about an estate regeneration scheme in his constituency; he made a strong argument. I also thank those who have spoken in the debate: the hon. Members for Putney (Fleur Anderson), for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper), for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher), for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I also somewhat belatedly congratulate the Minister on her promotion and welcome her to her place; this is the first time that I have had the pleasure of facing her in a debate.

Estate regeneration is an important process in delivering the right homes for local people. That is true across all the main types of estate regeneration, from refurbishments, where homes are retrofitted to bring them into line with regulations and make them safe, viable and modern places for people and families to call home, to infill developments, where new homes are built on previously developed or undeveloped land to increase density and provide housing for the local population, or full redevelopments and regenerations, meaning the wholesale demolition and reconstruction of entire estates to provide fresh stock for residents and for new buyers or tenants.

That is why, alongside new housing delivery, the Government should think seriously about estate regeneration. Across the country, there are thousands of homes with untapped potential for renewal, regeneration and improvement, alongside the vast and preponderant unrealised space that is ripe for increased density and new homes. That is especially true here in London, as I am sure the Minister will agree; I know it all too well, as a former Conservative leader on the London Assembly and as a Member of Parliament for a Greater London constituency.

With a population that has never been higher and continues growing, London is bursting with demand for housing. Greater London has been set a target of 88,000 homes a year by the Government. That means, on average, the equivalent of one London borough-worth of homes being delivered every 16 months. So far, however, the Mayor of London and his supporters in MHCLG are falling very far short of that. According to GLA figures, in 2024-25 just 7,124 social rent and London affordable rent homes were completed. Of course, that does not even come close to helping the 366,000 Londoners on the social housing waiting list.

The need for new homes is stark and urgent. The Government’s own figures show that across England, the number of new net additional dwellings was just 208,600 in Labour’s first year in power—a 6% drop from 2023-24, the previous Conservative Government’s final year in office. In Labour’s first year, 190,600 new homes were built; that is a fall of 8,000, or around 4%, from 2023-24, and suggests that the Government are on course to fall well short of their self-imposed target of 1.5 million homes by the end of this Parliament. They are on track to build something like 400,000 fewer homes than they promised at the election. By contrast, from 2013 to 2023, under the previous Government, the nation saw the highest sustained level of new home formations in the past 50 years, surpassing even the levels of the 1970s. Between 2010 and 2024, 2.5 million new homes and 750,000 affordable homes were delivered.

That is where estate regeneration can play a key role, particularly, but not only, in London. According to the London Councils estate regeneration report from November 2025, London’s boroughs have the potential to develop more than 10,000 new homes in a city that is starved of supply, but overflowing with demand. That is not true just inside the M25, but across the country, as Members from across the House have noted today. Estate regeneration is not a silver bullet, but it can certainly make a significant contribution.

The previous Government understood that. As the mover of today’s motion, the hon. Member for Basingstoke, noted, they had a national strategy in 2016 to give this issue the national attention that it deserves. They also understood the role that estate regeneration can play in taking the pressure off our green belt by prioritising the regeneration of brownfield sites, as the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, noted in his speech. Everyone has heard the lip service the Government pay to brownfield development, but MHCLG’s actions since July 2024 have shown a clear desire to build all over the green belt.

Instead of the undesirable urban sprawl encouraged by this Government, the Conservatives believe in building where homes are wanted and needed, and where they can be supported by existing necessary infrastructure such as in our cities and urban areas. Estate regeneration fits that rationale perfectly. As highlighted by the architect Chloë Phelps, the director of Grounded, estate regeneration schemes

“are going to be critical to delivering new homes on brownfield sites over the next few years, with estimates that there is capacity for more than 120,000 homes on small sites in London alone.”

The Minister’s colleague the Planning and Housing Minister is well-versed in all aspects of his brief, but his Department’s Social Housing Bill suggests otherwise. Not only does the Bill fail to recognise the importance of delivering social homes on brownfield sites, but estate regeneration remains largely absent from it. That is because the Bill is dressed up as a law to support social housing and increase its supply, but is in fact more about destroying the right to buy.

If the Government were serious about social housing, they would have actually built some. In 20% of council areas across England, not one social home was built under this Government over the last two years.

[Fleur Anderson]

Does the shadow Minister know that since Wandsworth council became Conservative, the only decisions it has made have been to cancel all of the housing development on one estate and partially cancel it on another? We are now wondering what will happen with the Alton estate. Does he support building more houses and keeping them as social housing, especially on the Alton estate?

[Gareth Bacon]

I am not going to comment on that particular scheme, because I am not across the detail of it, but of course I support building more houses, and we need more houses of all tenure. That is something that we have said repeatedly, here and in the main Chamber.

Once again, Whitehall has the wrong priorities: targeting our green belt, the ideological attack on the right to buy and the failing new towns programme. Those come before the right priorities, such as estate regeneration. Replacement rates are too low for social homes and too many councils have been unable to deliver. The Government would therefore be wise to generate an appetite for regeneration, to feed the desperate hunger for new social housing. To date, they have not done that.

The Conservative Opposition believe in building more homes, prioritising brownfield land and making the dream of home ownership a reality. We believe in aspiration and, critically, in regeneration. Only through those priorities, and by acting on those beliefs, can we provide the much needed, much demanded and much wanted decent and modern social homes that people deserve. I hope the Minister will address those concerns in full and give our constituents on the waiting list, the developers in a position to build, and local leaders the confidence that the nation needs in order to make estate regeneration real.

House Building: London

Fleur Anderson Excerpts

Wednesday 5th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mr French]

I agree that we should have a brownfield-first approach, seeking to protect our green belt and countryside wherever possible. I understand my right hon. Friend’s concern and her representations on behalf of her constituents.

The Home Builders Federation warns that the London plan’s net zero requirements are imposing carbon offset payments of £3,000 a home. Even when building on brownfield land is allowed, it is fraught with problems. The mayor requires 50% of homes to be affordable, which, given the remediation costs on those sites, makes development unviable. Altogether, the London plan review in 2024 found that Sadiq Khan’s policies frustrated, rather than facilitated, development on brownfield land. That is why it is so disappointing that the Government stopped the mandated partial review of the London plan a year ago, saving their mayor’s blushes.

Secondly, Sadiq Khan’s affordable homes target has made many housing projects unviable in London. By demanding that 35% of homes built privately are affordable, he has made house building unviable in London.

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

The hon. Member is painting a picture that I do not recognise in my London constituency. Is he aware that, as Mayor of London, Sadiq has averaged 10,000 more new homes completed a year than under Boris Johnson’s mayoralty? He has got house building going in a way that the Tory mayor could not.

[Mr French]

I appreciate the hon. Lady’s defence of her mayor, but I do not believe that most would recognise her statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship for the second time today, Mr Mundell. I welcome this important debate and thank the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French) for securing it. I declare an interest, as my son is studying construction management at London South Bank University—I hope he will be one of the house builders of the future. I also do so because, like all the other hon. Members in this debate, this is one of the biggest issues for my constituency—for so many people who come to my surgery and whom I see every day when I go out and about in the constituency, but also for my own children. I do not know whether they would ever be able to afford to live in my area, and that is no way to build a community. People need to be able to know that their children and grandchildren will be able to live near them, to have work near them and to live in areas that they can afford. At the moment, we do not have that in London; we have a broken housing situation.

Tackling the housing crisis has always been a top priority for the Mayor of London. Despite some of the claims made today, the facts speak for themselves. Sadiq Khan has started more new council homes in London than has been the case at any time since the 1970s. Before the pandemic, he completed more homes than had been the case at any time since the 1930s. That is not luck; it is Labour leadership in action and working hand in hand with Labour boroughs, such as Wandsworth, to deliver for Londoners. Since 2018, 23,000 council homes have been built or are being built with the help of City Hall funding.

We know that the challenges are real. House building is facing a perfect storm: the legacy of Conservative under-investment and, in Wandsworth, Conservative total pandering to developers; sky-high interest rates; soaring construction costs; and the lasting impact of Brexit. Those pressures demand bold, urgent action. That is why I welcome the emergency, time-limited housing package announced by the Government and the mayor, working together, in October. It is a serious intervention, with £322 million of new investment for a City Hall developer investment fund, which will be used to keep affordable housing rates as high as they can be. Like other hon. Members, I hope that we will not just see more dark houses. It is really important that local people have first dibs on all the new houses being built. We need to have those stalled projects unlocked and getting shovels in the ground.

I will highlight two housing developments in my constituency that I think all hon. Members will be very interested in. This is good news. The first is New Acres, which is a £500 million, purpose-built neighbourhood on a brownfield site that has brought 1,034 new rental homes to Wandsworth; it was completed last year. The original plans were that 23% would be affordable. The mayor called the scheme in, and it is now 35% affordable, with 55% of that built in the first phase. It has not been a case of leaving it all to the next phase and then it perhaps not happening. It is there; it is real. It is in my community in Wandsworth. It is one of the UK’s largest build-to-rent schemes and it is—I underline—35% affordable.

The second development is the Alton estate renewal, which just two weeks ago, in the UK’s largest ever regeneration ballot, was overwhelmingly endorsed by residents—82.4% voted in favour. That is the result of the Labour council coming in and saying that the previous Conservative council’s plans just did not work and were being imposed on the community. The Labour council said, “Let’s start again and work with the community.” The community could see that the plans would provide what they wanted for their area. There will be new GP surgeries; dedicated youth facilities, which I am obsessed with; a family hub; improved shops; green spaces, and up to 650 new homes—the developer is the council, so it will be able to ensure that it has the affordable housing and that the whole development is what the community wants—thanks to £100 million in investment from the council and £16 million in Greater London Authority funding, with a focus on family-sized homes.

We need more affordable homes. I am grateful for the Renters’ Rights Act 2025, and for all the work the Minister did on it. I am also grateful for Awaab’s law and its extension to private renters, because the link between housing and mental health issues is very strong. But I agree with other Members that overseas sales need to be reduced. Buy-backs are very important, as is local government funding for repairs. Too many homes stay empty for too long between periods of use. Councils need more money to repair them along the way.

A Labour mayor with a proven track record of house building, backed by a Labour Government with the ambition to deliver, and a Labour council, as we have in Wandsworth, is how we will solve London’s housing crisis. That is how we will build a fairer, stronger city for future generations.

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

I call Luke Taylor on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. You have eight minutes.

Property Service Charges

Fleur Anderson Excerpts

Thursday 30th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

I welcome this important debate and thank the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) very much on behalf of the many constituents who come to my surgeries, who write to me, and who I meet when I am out and about in the many developments across Putney, Southfields, Roehampton and Wandsworth town.

I speak today on behalf not just of my constituents, but of leaseholders across the country who feel that they are being let down by the broken system—one that continues to allow unfair and sharply rising service charges, poor communication, and substandard services to persist unchecked. The limited rights to challenge such changes leave people feeling as if they are fighting the battle on their own. As we know from the number of Members present and from many other meetings, people across the country face these issues, so there is something wrong not just with the individual managing agencies that we are all thinking of, but with the system itself.

The hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam) mentioned regulation. Do we need more layers of it? We must also consider the checks and balances in the system. Asking people to go to the first-tier tribunal as a last resort is so daunting and cumbersome that it is not a proper check on the system. I welcome the Government’s decisive action to tackle long-standing injustices in leasehold and estate management. I thank the Minister for all his work on that, including the incoming changes. This debate is full of hope about those changes making a difference.

Ahead of the closure of the Government’s recent consultation on strengthening leaseholder protections, I conducted a service charge consultation in my constituency, where it is a big issue in so many developments. The results, which I have submitted to the Government, were deeply troubling. More than 200 constituents responded to my consultation, and I think they speak for hundreds more. Almost 90% of respondents reported significant increases in their service charges. Even more—96%—said that they felt those increases were unjustified. That comes down not only to poor communication, but to the fact that many of those services charges do seem to be unjustified.

Those are not isolated cases, as we are hearing in the debate. In 2024, service charges rose by 11% on average—well above the 2.5% rate of inflation—and, in my constituency, they average £2,300 per year. I see countless examples of eye-watering hikes. One constituent reported that their annual service charge had increased from £1,600 to £6,660 per year, for example, while another told me they were sent a large additional bill right before Christmas as their managing agent clawed back more money after an “error” in its accounting. That often happens during years in which the amount has already risen a lot, before rising more still because of extra charges and services provided—or not provided, as many constituents see it.

Too many leaseholders are ignored by managing agents and charged for services that are sub-standard or not delivered at all, including cleaning services that show no signs of leaving the building cleaner, painting in communal areas that do not need to be painted or for which the charge should be lower, and, in one case, gardening services for gardens that do not exist. One of the most shocking examples in my consultation was a large development in my constituency. Leaseholders reported a revolving door of housing managers who are inexperienced, unqualified, overstretched and unfamiliar with the building’s history. The managing agent presents accounts that simply do not add up. Contractors are paid without checks, faults go un-penalised and residents are left to clean up the mess time and again. The managing agent has ignored numerous industry experts who have stated that important plumbing works need to be carried out. Some have said that the building is in serious danger of complete structural failure. Basic services are not carried out, yet leaseholders continue to foot the bill. The managing agent is supposed to paint the exterior at least every 10 years, but nothing happens. It is the same old story again and again.

Six managing agents were named many times in my consultation. I will not name them here, because that would be damaging for the people who live in those developments. Clearly, there are some good managing agents and landlords, but there are also some very bad ones, and those are the ones that we need a new Bill to deal with. The Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 contains proposals for greater transparency through standardised accounts, mandatory reserve funds and easier routes to challenge unreasonable service charge rises, and managing agents will face mandatory qualifications and enforced membership of professional bodies. Those measures are all welcome. The previous Conservative Government had 14 years to act on these matters but passed leasehold reform law only in the dying days of the last Parliament, so their measures were rushed, poorly drafted and failed to ban new leasehold homes.

I am very glad that this debate offers us the chance to talk about going further on industry regulation and to welcome the commonhold Bill. Leaseholders in my constituency and across the country have waited long enough. The system is broken, the injustice is real, and the need for reform is urgent.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call David Reed. Many congratulations on baby Reuben!

Oral Answers to Questions

Fleur Anderson Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

We are looking closely at every area. We know that local government is going through the process of reorganisation at the same time as we are doing devolution. We are doing that at pace, but we are doing it in strong collaboration, working closely with individual areas.

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

We welcome devolution in London, but the ability of local councils like mine in Wandsworth to tackle growth could be undermined by the changes proposed in the fair funding review. In Wandsworth, 26% of residents and 33% of children live in poverty after housing costs. Will the Minister consider making adjustments to the proposed funding formula to properly account for housing and children’s services and ensure that no council is worse off as a result of the review?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

We have consulted on the fair funding review. My colleague the Minister for Local Government and Homelessness is looking at proposals at the moment, and we will report back in due course.

Oral Answers to Questions

Fleur Anderson Excerpts

Monday 22nd April 2024 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

1. What steps he is taking to reform the private rented sector.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Jacob Young)]

The Renters (Reform) Bill will have its Report stage on Wednesday 24 April. The Bill abolishes section 21 evictions, moves the sector to a system of periodic tenancies and introduces a private rented sector property portal and ombudsman, improving the system for responsible tenants and good-faith landlords.

[Fleur Anderson]

Ministers first promised to end no-fault evictions five years ago. Since then, 85,000 households have been threatened with no-fault evictions, including a constant stream of residents in Putney. Does the Minister not agree that that was ample time to implement the necessary improvements and that the delay has caused immense suffering to people in the private rented sector?

[Jacob Young]

I agree with the hon. Lady that we need to abolish section 21 evictions as soon as possible. When it comes to the Bill, we published the White Paper in 2022, we published the Bill in 2023 and we are bringing forward the Report stage on Wednesday.