Chatham Docks Basin 3 Redevelopment

Kelly Tolhurst Excerpts

Wednesday 1st May 2024 Westminster Hall

[Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the redevelopment of Chatham Docks Basin 3.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Philip.

The debate over the future of Chatham docks has stirred strong emotions in our community. On one side, Peel Waters has proposed a residential-focused mixed-use development, but closer examination raises concerns about its sustainability and impact on our already thriving industries. The proposal has prompted legitimate worries about the quality of jobs, uncertainty surrounding investments and the overall environmental footprint, echoing sentiments that I have been expressing for several years.

In response to those concerns, I have been championing an alternative vision alongside the Save Chatham Docks campaign. It centres around the SPPARC Architecture masterplan, which sets out revitalisation focused on modern industrial space, emphasising job creation, economic growth and environmental sustainability—all essential for the future of the port’s activities. I appreciate the opportunity today to highlight that cause and to bring further information forward as to why saving the docks is the only sensible solution.

Chatham docks was part of the old Royal Navy Dockyard Chatham estate, which has stood proudly for 457 years.

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

Sir Philip, is it not normal to declare interests at the start of a debate? Is the right hon. Lady intending to make any such declarations?

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I am not too sure what the hon. Gentleman refers to.

[Neil Coyle]

Sir Philip, you may wish to explain the rules—but I think it is a requirement that where we have interests in a particular area, or a potential financial interest, we declare them before we comment on or speak to that issue. I again invite the right hon. Member to make any declarations that are relevant.

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I would like the hon. Gentleman to elaborate on which financial interest he thinks I have.

[Sir Philip Davies (in the Chair)]

Order. We can carry on this exchange, but it is for a Member to determine whether they have an interest to declare. If they decide they do not have an interest to declare, that is a matter for them. I do not know if that satisfies the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle), but it is for the Member themselves to determine that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelly Tolhurst]

Thank you, Sir Philip.

The dockyard has stood proudly for 457 years as a symbol of Medway’s economic backbone and our local heritage. On the banks of the River Medway, the docks embody the spirit of our community, connecting us to our past while paving the way to our future. Generations of families, including mine, can trace their stories alongside the history of Chatham docks. My mum’s family tells a familiar tale, with ancestors who have worked and served our country from those docks. Growing up in Medway meant always meeting people who shared similar connections—each a demonstration of the impact that the docks have had on generations across our community.

During its heyday, Chatham dockyard was the most important shipbuilding and repair dockyard in the country, contributing more than 500 ships to the Royal Navy and employing more than 10,000 skilled artisans. However, the closure of the Royal Navy Dockyard Chatham 40 years ago marked the end of an era, prompting a transformation that has been nothing short of remarkable.

The dockyard estate was split into three sections, and it has been revitalised into a mix of commercial, residential and leisure spaces. The establishment of Chatham Historic Dockyard Trust has ensured that a piece of our heritage remains accessible to all, serving as a living museum that educates visitors. It has played host to the sets of some of our favourite TV dramas and films.

English Estates took over another section of the old dockyard estate at the time, which is now host to basins 1 and 2 of the complex. Those have been formed into the Chatham Maritime Marina and a water sports facility, respectively, alongside significant retail and commercial office space. The northern section of the parcel is St Mary’s Island, which hosts a development and is now home to more than 5,000 residents.

Today, our focus lies on the third section—the easternmost—which surrounds basin 3 and is designated under Medway Ports Authority. It is a bustling commercial port and manufacturing hub that drives economic growth and offers fantastic opportunities for local businesses and residents. Basin 3 at Chatham docks is unique: it is the only non-tidal enclosed dock in Kent. It is regionally significant, as it plays a critical role in facilitating the transportation of vital materials to London and other regions across the UK in an environmentally sustainable way. Currently, it hosts nearly 20 businesses, and boasts a roster of notable multinational businesses such as ArcelorMittal, Aggregate Industries and European Active Projects Ltd, all of which have established UK bases within the port premises. In turn, they provide a number of high-quality jobs, particularly for local residents; they directly employ 795 people, including 750 full-time equivalent staff, and indirectly support an additional 1,500 jobs through the supply chain network. Those figures translated into a combined turnover of nearly £175 million in 2021.

[Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

Am I right in thinking that ArcelorMittal is the only tenant in basin 3 that has not agreed to relocate?

[Kelly Tolhurst]

My understanding is that there are other organisations operating within the port facility that want to stay where they are. Some have relocated because they unfortunately did not have another option; their leases meant that they were unable to stay.

The operations at Chatham docks span a diverse range of high-value industries. Materials and goods are brought in via water channels, undergo processing and manufacturing, and are subsequently exported.

[Neil Coyle]

Two of the companies that have been operating in Chatham docks for marine repairs are EAPL and Stick-Mig Welding. Does the right hon. Lady have anything to say about the relationship between Skipper Ltd and those two companies?

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I think the hon. Gentleman is referring to Skipper (UK) Ltd, which I am still a director of—and which has no customers or interests in Chatham docks or any of the businesses that operate in Chatham docks.

A sometimes overlooked aspect of the incumbent operations at Chatham docks is the strong commitment to nurturing talent. The array of apprenticeship programmes provides excellent avenues towards rewarding careers. In 2020 alone, 16 apprenticeship programmes offered 20 positions per 1,000 jobs, massively surpassing the Medway average of about nine apprenticeships for every 1,000 jobs. The investment in people not only benefits the individuals involved but strengthens the workforce of the entire region, offering high-quality careers that make a real difference.

Importantly, the jobs offered at Chatham docks provide above average wages, raising the median wage in Medway. The average annual earnings were £43,000 in 2023—nearly 9% higher than the Medway median wage. These positions serve as a crucial driver of economic stability, especially in an area where 13.5% of Medway’s workforce earn below two thirds of UK median pay as of 2021. It is clear that Chatham docks are absolutely essential for the local population. In 2019, it was found that 20% of its workers lived in the Chatham docks three-digit postcode—ME1—and 45% across Medway.

The economic significance of the docks extends beyond direct employment and wages: it contributes significantly to the regional economy, accounting for more than 4% of Medway’s gross value added and generating approximately £89 million in GVA annually. In addition to its economic contribution, Chatham docks also plays a vital role in generating tax revenues, which contribute essential funding for local services and infrastructure. The annual tax revenues are estimated to range between £27 million and £36 million, and the annual business rates payments are about £2 million. Those revenues also provide financial resources to support the community.

The main issue at hand, and my reason for calling this debate, is the progress of Peel Waters’ attempt to end the use of Chatham docks as a commercial port, displacing the businesses within it, with the loss of high-quality jobs. Peel Waters has a vision to implement a residential-led, mixed-use development across the site. It has been over a decade since Peel Waters first set its sights on the redevelopment of Chatham docks, and started to redevelop part of the land. Its 2013 application initially boasted that development of Chatham Waters would provide 3,549 permanent jobs once fully developed, or 2,418 net additional jobs, with an associated GVA of around £92.4 million.

The projections suggested a substantial boost to both employment and the local economy. Looking deeper into the plans as time progressed, however, all is not as it seemed. The 2013 planning statement provided a more specific breakdown of the employment that would be delivered. It showed a significant proportion of projections included employment for retail and hospitality. For the projected 764 jobs as part of phase 1, 400 to 450 would be provided at the Asda retail food store, 40 to 50 at the pub and 20 at a coffee shop. I have long championed the hospitality industry, but this would be a stark contrast to the jobs that they would replace from the manufacturing, construction and transport industries.

[Matthew Pennycook]

The right hon. Lady is being generous in giving way, which I appreciate, so that I can better understand the specifics of the case. My understanding is that the local plan has not been updated since 2003. Can she give us her view on why that is the case? Why have previous Medway Council administrations not brought that plan up to date to set out a viable and feasible dock retention policy?

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. He is right that Medway Council is out of a local plan. The previous local plan, which is occasionally referred to regarding planning applications, clearly designates Chatham docks as a commercial rather than residential area—hence my campaign, with others across the Medway towns, to demand and ensure that Chatham docks remains a commercial site, rather than a residential-led development.

Peel has also claimed that, on completion, 2,701 jobs will be in office space. Without the density specified, that would pose a risk of under-utilisation of the available area. Independent analysis revealed that in reality we have seen a shortfall in job creation, with around only 200 full-time jobs materialising since the plans were first introduced more than 14 years ago. That represents 26% of phase 1 jobs estimates and 6% of the total jobs promised across the whole of the Chatham Waters development—a far cry from the lofty estimates put forward.

It transpired that in 2019 Peel had desires to redevelop the Chatham docks site into primarily residential areas. The updated plan was led by 3,600 homes and claimed it would support over 2,000 jobs on site. Although the shift towards housing development appeals to Medway Council’s housing targets, it raises concern about the potential impact on existing jobs and industries at the docks.

It has been clear that Medway’s housing targets have been disproportionately affecting my constituency of Rochester and Strood. Over the past 15 years, we have seen delivery of thousands of new homes, with thousands more in the pipeline for my constituency, while sites such as Chatham docks are now at risk due to Medway’s focus on meeting targets. We require a more strategic approach to housing development, focusing on suitable locations with adequate infrastructure.

[Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, with these important sites, it is crucial to respect the character of the surrounding area in deciding what is to be built? In particular, there is a need for larger family homes, but many developments of this sort seem focused almost entirely on small flats.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelly Tolhurst]

My right hon. Friend is right that one concern around developments such as this is that the focus is on number and units of flats, as opposed to delivering the type of accommodation that local people in the Medway towns desire in the locations. The numbers are a challenge, but the type of accommodation is just as important.

Rochester and Strood have spearheaded Medway’s efforts to meet housing demand, but Medway’s annual target, calculated using the standard methodology, remains at 1,667 new homes, culminating in 28,339 homes by 2040. Currently, the council has plans for 7,583 homes in the pipeline, with an additional 3,000 windfall sites predicted, which means the council faces the task of finding suitable locations for just over 19,000 additional homes. Unfortunately, Medway Council has cited the need to reach those targets as the reason why a unique, regionally important infrastructure asset such as Chatham docks is even being considered as part of the local plan process.

There is now a live application for part of the site currently occupied by ArcelorMittal that proposes to replace its operation with a different type of commercial space. This move aims to shift existing commercial activity, but signals a broader trend that could lead to the displacement of crucial industries and jobs. Sadly, in my view the application is the thin end of the wedge, threatening to pave the way for the loss of important industries, high-value jobs and the ability of the commercial port industries’ use of basin 3. The application is just the beginning, setting the stage for Peel’s larger plan to develop a large number of residential units across the site.

Following the campaign by fellow Conservative MPs urging the Government to initiate a consultation on changes to the national planning policy framework, the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities responded by amending the NPPF, notably by clarifying housing targets to be an advisory starting point rather than being mandatory, thereby promising positive outcomes for communities where there was robust evidence to support a difference. The new NPPF introduces several key provisions aimed at making local planning processes more effective and responsive to community needs. First, it empowers local authorities by giving them greater flexibility to address housing requirements specific to their area. That means they can tailor solutions to fit local circumstances rather than adopting a one-size-fits-all approach.

The framework emphasises the importance of maintaining the character of a local area by preventing densities that would be “wholly out of character”. That helps to safeguard the integrity of local plans and ensures that new developments complement them rather than distract from the existing surroundings. Additionally, the NPPF introduces measures to help councils to resist speculative housing developments, giving them more control over how their communities grow. It also outlines criteria for when alternative approaches can be justified, ensuring that decisions are made with careful consideration of exceptional circumstances.

For local planning authorities, the changes mean a renewed focus on accurately assessing and meeting local housing need and on gathering robust evidence to support decisions. Although they are required to use a standard methodology for determining housing need, they have the flexibility to adjust plans according to local constraints and needs. That flexibility allows targets to be fine-tuned to reflect specific local circumstances, whether that means preserving the character of neighbourhoods or protecting green spaces. Ultimately, the reforms strike a balance between national objectives and local priorities.

In the light of the changes, Medway Council has an opportunity to produce a local plan that fits the needs of our community. Given the adjustments, Medway Council should reconsider the plans for Chatham docks. By prioritising the preservation of our commercial port and protecting jobs and an infrastructure asset that has national importance, we can sustain the local economy and its future development. The economic significance of businesses at Chatham docks should not be underestimated and destroyed. The area needs this type of industry and employment.

The lock gates, which allow access into basin 3 via the River Medway, have long been cited by Peel as a stumbling block to Chatham docks’ future economic viability, claiming that the cost of repairs or replacement is prohibitive. That assertion is refuted by surveyors and tenants who, based on studies carried out, believe that with a proper maintenance and renewal programme an ongoing commercial port operation has the capacity to flourish.

An important but often overlooked factor when considering the cost implications of repairs to the lock gates is the water management agreement, which has been in place since the initial split of the dockyard estate into the distinct areas described earlier. It governs the management of water flow through basins 1, 2 and 3, as well as access for naval vessels to basin 2 from the river. It was only back in 2019 that we welcomed the new HMS Medway to Chatham. Peel has a responsibility and the obligation remains, as outlined in the deeds, to maintain the lock gates as the custodians of the asset, whatever the future of the site.

The current closure of the gates is significantly affecting businesses within basin 3. Moreover, the blockage of salt water flow through the basin complex directly affects the water quality in basin 2, where the Chatham Maritime Trust, of which I am a trustee, operates a water sports centre. I am concerned that compromised water quality could render the basin unsuitable for such activities in future.

A clear example of one of the most successful businesses based at Chatham docks is the principal tenant, ArcelorMittal, which has called it home since 1988. Its presence at the docks speaks volumes of how it values their strategic location. The company is dedicated to the docks, and has further shown its engagement by commissioning Volterra Partners to conduct an independent socioeconomic assessment, which has evaluated whether there is a case to support ArcelorMittal’s future and the viability of investment in basin 3.

As the second largest steel producer in the world, ArcelorMittal supplies approximately 30% of the UK’s steel reinforcement and is a leading wire rod manufacturer in the UK, with influence extending far beyond Medway. Its involvement in landmark projects, ranging from Crossrail to the Shard and from Heathrow terminal 5 to the London Stadium, has marked its imprint on the iconic skyline of the UK. As London gears up for massive infrastructure investments totalling £27 billion until 2032-33, ArcelorMittal stands ready to supply the essential materials required in those ambitious projects.

ArcelorMittal relies heavily on water transport, sourcing around 85% of its steel through that method, primarily from overseas locations such as ports in Hamburg. To be clear, this is an operation that cannot simply be located to an inland site. ArcelorMittal has made it clear that should it lose its Chatham docks site, it would be forced to shift its operations entirely to continental Europe, to the detriment of the region and the national economy.

It should also be noted that shipping products produce far less emissions than transporting the equivalent via heavy goods vehicles and certainly when transported by aircraft. Maintaining and potentially expanding operations in the area would therefore be environmentally preferable to a total shutdown, given the transport emission savings. The commitment to sustainability is evident in ArcelorMittal’s production methods, with more than 98% of its steel reinforcements made from recycled scrapped steel. Its embracing of innovative technologies such as hydrogen also leads the way towards greener practices for steel production.

In recognising the importance of the location, ArcelorMittal is committed to expansion and enhancements. Currently, £5 million of inward investment is on hold, with a potential additional £20 million, pending the approval of the SPPARC masterplan. Although ArcelorMittal is the largest tenant at Chatham docks, it is just one of the many examples of successful businesses that make up the thriving commercial dockyard and manufacturing hub.

I have long been a supporter of the campaign to save Chatham docks. Back in 2021 I held an Adjournment debate on the issue, using the platform to highlight the thriving businesses already operating at the docks. Then, in summer 2022, the alternative vision from the Save Chatham Docks campaign was launched, laying out plans to ensure its long-term viability.

Key components of the SPPARC masterplan include a riverfront route, the green buffer zone and a port facility upgrade, all aimed at revitalising the area and attracting new opportunities. The anticipated impact of the masterplan is staggering, with projections suggesting the creation of up to 2,570 full-time job equivalents, while safeguarding the high-value, high-skilled jobs that exist today. That would result in a significant boost in worker expenditure, estimated at between £2.4 million and £4.2 million annually.

Furthermore, with the improvements proposed in the masterplan we could see a substantial increase in the amount of materials transported by sea freight, potentially reaching 600,000 tonnes per year, which would translate into a direct economic output of £119 million to £177 million, equivalent to 18% to 27% of Medway’s total GVA in the manufacturing sector.

The masterplan is all about unlocking the potential on the site, ushering in a new era of prosperity. The potential tax generation it could bring is also worth noting, with projected annual tax revenues estimated to rise to an amount between £36 million and £71 million, providing vital funding for essential services. Additionally, the influx of businesses could generate another £6.1 million per year in business rate payments, which would offer much-needed relief to Medway Council’s financial position.

The masterplan is not just about figures and statistics, though: it represents hopes and opportunities for people in Medway and the surrounding areas. It is a shot at creating a better tomorrow, not just for now but for future generations in my community.

Beyond the immediate concerns lie the environmental implications. As an island nation, nearly 95% of the UK’s imports and exports are transported by water, and Chatham plays a huge part in that. Approximately 85% of the materials imported into Chatham docks are transported by sea freight, contributing significantly to the reduction of carbon emissions. Analysis has shown that in 2019 the use of sea freight at the docks resulted in a saving of approximately 9,100 tonnes of CO₂ emissions compared with emissions from heavy goods vehicles. That is equivalent to about 13,000 lorry trips.

If the docks were redeveloped in a way that shifted waterborne transport on to our roads, it would pose a significant environmental risk, in turn worsening air quality and potentially making Chatham one of the worst-affected areas in the UK outside central London. That would be a step in the completely wrong direction when it comes to the progress we are making on our emissions and the path to net zero.

National Highways has also raised concerns about the transport impacts stemming from the consequential increased use of heavy goods vehicles, particularly concerning the safety, reliability and operational efficiency of the M2 strategic road network. I too am concerned by that, and further concerned by the knock-on effects that it would have on local traffic and road conditions—issues that have already posed real difficulties in our area.

Local opposition to Peel Waters’ plan has been robust, with countless constituents contacting me on the topic and Medway residents and Chatham docks employees sending in over 170 letters of rejection to the current live application. I have been overwhelmed by not only the local support but the support from businesses and groups in other parts of the country. It makes no sense that such high-quality jobs, valuable industry and infrastructure assets could be lost in the pursuit of short-term profit for organisations. These industries are important now and will remain so in the future.

We cannot prioritise the short-term profits of developers over our community’s livelihoods and existing industries. The recent amendments to the NPPF that make housing targets advisory and allow more flexibility for local authorities should mean that Medway Council is under less pressure to develop a housing development at Chatham docks, and I hope that it, too, can see the importance of preserving the commercial port for our long-term local economy.

Local opposition to Peel Waters underscores the community’s strong desire to preserve the docks’ heritage, protect high-quality jobs and ensure sustainable development. We owe it to our community, the workers and the future generations as we approach these challenges and make sure that we save Chatham docks.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

We certainly will not ignore the views of residents when it comes to planning proposals. However, it is fair to say—this is partly why I find the yimby/nimby debate incredibly reductive—that there is a core of people in the country who do not want development—

[Kelly Tolhurst]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will answer the previous intervention, then I will happily give way.

There is a core of people in the country who do not want development of any kind near them under any circumstances, and we have to take those people on and do so with conviction. There is a much wider group of people who oppose bad development in their constituencies, and we must change the offer of what development means, but that cannot mean that development does not take place. I will address the point on housing targets if it comes up later in the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I am grateful to the shadow Minister. However, I would like to pull him up on the point he made about the nimby debate. I want to be clear that this is about the future and jobs. The hon. Gentleman may remember that he wrote to me representing his constituents, who were also concerned about the operations at Chatham docks, because I believe that he has constituents who work there.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the right hon. Lady for that point. I did indeed write to her; it is a small number, but I have a few constituents who work at Chatham docks. As I said in opening my remarks, I very much recognise the existing concerns about the future of the sites and the jobs linked to them. To clarify what I said, I did not condemn nimbys in the debate: I said that we need to move beyond the incredibly reductive debate between yimbys and nimbys. There is a far more nuanced position out there. As I said, there are people who oppose development under any circumstances, and we are clear that we will take them on. There is a wider group of people who oppose bad development, and we must change the offer to them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelly Tolhurst]

Thank you, Sir Philip, for calling me to wind up. I thank the Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley), for the time he has spared to talk to me prior to this debate. He has been very generous with his time when I have brought to his attention issues that particularly affect my constituency. I also totally understand his unique position in relation to what he was able to say in this debate today. I am sure that he has heard what I have said in this debate and understood the principles that I have tried to outline, and I am grateful for his continued interest in the planning and development of the Medway towns.

I will just pick up on a point made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook). It was disappointing to hear from him today that Labour has decided not to be as robust as before in its support of Chatham docks. That has been borne out locally with the local council and my hon. Friend the Minister highlighted the definite change in position by Labour that has been expressed.

It is not my view that the housing targets are not correct; actually, the standard methodology can be calculated in a number of different ways. My argument has always been that I do not agree with the displacement of a major, regionally significant piece of infrastructure, and with it jobs—high-skilled jobs—in industries that can contribute importantly to a local area, and for it to be wiped out in the pursuit of profit for landowners who want to build flats, which I have to say will be used to accommodate London’s failure to deliver on its housing supply, because most of the new developments within my constituency are not being taken up by local residents.

I also want to mention the importance of robust evidence. For me and I think for my local community, robust evidence in plan-making or in any planning application is key. We hope that Medway Council will actually deliver such robust evidence, rather than worrying about how many houses it will build in my constituency, which I reiterate has absolutely been playing its part in reducing the burden that exists and delivering on housing numbers, with the amount of new development that is going on within it. I would like to see such robust evidence being used to support the process of deciding where development sites across my constituency will be located. And I believe that there is robust evidence to support Chatham docks remaining as a commercial entity rather than being used to build flats.

Finally—I want to be clear about this—the businesses operating in Chatham docks are there because it is a non-tidal basin. The River Medway has a 6 metre fall and rise, and therefore a non-tidal basin is massively important for any kind of water-based activity. If certain businesses cannot operate in the docks in the future, they will not be relocated down the river or to an inland facility; they will be displaced and will not operate in the Medway towns any longer. That would have a direct impact on the number of people who are employed.

I am supporting the workers in my constituency, but unfortunately I have yet to see the leader of Medway Council honour the commitment he made when he stood outside with me waving a banner saying, “Save Chatham Docks”. He said that Labour is the party of workers.

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) for her support in planning matters. She made some great contributions and understands fully some of the challenges that I experience in my constituency. I very much welcome her support and her contributions.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the redevelopment of Chatham Docks Basin 3.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Kelly Tolhurst Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 13th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

It is good to hear the policies that my right hon. and learned Friend is outlining. My constituency has a high housing target that is forcing the closure of a working port. How would the options she has just outlined help my constituency keep a working docks instead of seeing the development of high-rise flats?

[Lucy Frazer]

I know that my hon. Friend is a champion for her area, which has seen significant building. I cannot comment on any particular local plans, but an area must consider all the things that it needs to thrive, and that includes houses as well as employment facilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I disagree with the right hon. Gentleman’s analysis. We do not know precisely what the Government have in mind for local housing targets, but my reading of their announcement is not that local authorities will simply use best endeavours. Although local house building targets will remain as an aspiration, they will not be enforced and we will therefore see a hit to housing supply, with a resulting hit to economic growth.

[Kelly Tolhurst]

rose—

[Matthew Pennycook]

I want to make some progress, so I will not give way.

We take issue with the Government making local housing targets unenforceable in the absence of a viable alternative to try to maintain supply.

We believe it is essential not only that the process by which the Secretary of State must designate and review an NDMP involves minimum public consultation requirements and an appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny, but that the scope of an NDMP to override local plans is suitably constrained. On that basis, I commend amendments 78 and 79 to the House.

Part 4 addresses the new infrastructure levy, which is the Government’s proposed replacement for the present arrangement by which local planning authorities secure developer contributions. We believe the new levy is one of the most consequential aspects of the Bill and has potentially far-reaching implications not only for the provision of core infrastructure but for the supply of affordable housing. Although we fully appreciate that schedule 11 merely provides the basic framework for the levy, with a detailed design to follow, and that the levy’s implementation will take a test-and-learn approach, we are convinced that, as a proposition, it is fundamentally flawed.

As we argued in great detail in Committee, the deficiencies inherent in a rigid fixed-rate mechanism for securing both infrastructure and affordable housing, based on the metric of gross development value, almost certainly means the levy will prove onerously complicated to operate in practice and that, overall, it will deliver less infrastructure and less affordable housing in the future, while putting the development of less viable sites at risk.

For that reason, we remain of the view that if the infrastructure levy is taken forward, it should be optional rather than mandatory, with local authorities that believe that the needs of their areas are best served by the existing developer contributions system able to continue to utilise it. Taken together, amendments 81 to 83 and 91 would ensure that local authorities retain that discretion, and I hope the new Minister, whom I welcome to her place, will consider them carefully, along with amendment 86, which seeks to address a specific concern about how viability testing will inform the levy rate-setting process.

Amendment 84 seeks to ensure that if the Government insist it is made mandatory, the new infrastructure levy must deliver sufficient levels of affordable housing. Since the publication of the Bill, Ministers have repeated ad nauseam that the new levy will secure at least as much affordable housing as developer contributions do now, yet the Government have so far been unable to provide any evidence or analysis to substantiate why they believe it can fulfil that objective. More importantly, there is nothing in the Bill to ensure that the commitment made by successive Ministers with regard to affordable housing will be honoured. At present, proposed new section 204G(2) of the Planning Act 2008—in schedule 11, on page 291 of the Bill—only requires charging authorities to have regard to the desirability of ensuring that levels of affordable housing are

“maintained at a level which, over a specified period, is equal to or exceeds the level of such housing and funding provided over an earlier specified period of the same length.”

Put simply, the Bill as drafted would enable—one might even say encourage—inadequate levels of affordable housing supply to remain the norm by making them the minimum requirement.

If we want to ensure that the new levy secures at least as much affordable housing as is being delivered through the existing developer contributions system—and ideally more—we believe the Bill needs to be revised. That is not a view confined only to this side of the House. In the foreword to a report published only yesterday by the Centre for Social Justice, the hon. Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes)—himself a former Minister in the Department—argues in relation to the levy that

“it would be good to see stronger safeguards in primary legislation, rather than in regulations, for protecting and increasing the existing levels of affordable housing supply funded in this way”.

Not for the first time, I find myself in agreement with the hon. Gentleman.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I want to speak in favour of Government new clause 119, to which I am delighted to add my name. The campaign for a register for short-term Airbnb-style properties has been long in the making. Before I came to this place, when I was a member of Philippa Roe’s cabinet on Westminster Council, we successfully lobbied the Government of the time—the coalition Government—to secure a 90-day limit for lettings in London under the Deregulation Act 2015. Mr Deputy Speaker, I hope you will allow me to pay tribute to Philippa Roe, Baroness Couttie, who lost her battle against cancer yesterday. I pay tribute to the brilliant work she did as a councillor.

It should therefore come as no surprise that I welcome the substance of the Government’s new clause 119, which would require the Secretary of State to make provision for a registration scheme for short-term rental properties. Legislating for such a scheme, let alone understanding the scale of the problem across the country, has been hampered over the past decade by a distinct lack of evidence and data. With this in mind, I would like to stress the importance of subsection 3 of new clause 119, which will mean that the Secretary of State

“must consult the public before making the first regulations under this section.”

This is absolutely the right approach, in my opinion. Consultation will be fundamental, and we need time to review the data and make sure that we are doing this right.

I have a certain amount of sympathy with the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell). There are strong commonalities between the Government’s new clause 119 and new clause 107, and I know, having run a local authority, that we must allow councils the freedom to do what is best for their own area. Believe me, a one-size-fits-all approach will not work. To avoid over-legislating, it will be essential that we get this right before applying the standardised registration scheme to the to-do list of local authorities, primarily because not all local authorities need a registration scheme; for those where a scheme is necessary, it must differ according to regional trends in short-term letting. Westminster will be different from York, and requirements in York will be different from those in Cumbria and coastal communities.

I take this opportunity to thank the Minister, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer), who has really listened and got this argument. I do ask, though, that we look at announcing a timescale for the first regulations to be brought forward, to allow local authorities to start planning now for the registration if it is coming later this year. I am delighted that the Department has accepted our arguments and has brought in new clause 119.

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I rise to talk about targets but also, because of the shortness of time, to highlight the plight of my constituency, where targets have been on the tongues of all my constituents since I was elected to this House in 2015, predominantly because of the high level of housing needs being proposed across the unitary authority. Unfortunately, rather than being spread across the unitary authority, the majority of that proposed housing is within my constituency, particularly the Hoo peninsula, where there are many villages sandwiched between the Thames and the River Medway, surrounded by Ramsar sites and sites of special scientific interest and, of course, home to the nightingale.

As I said before, we also have Chatham docks—a thriving working port with business delivering major infrastructure for the UK. However, because of the council’s need to meet the high housing target, the docks are at risk of closure for the building of high-rise flats. We have done our part in my Rochester and Strood constituency on delivering homes; we have been delivering homes for the last decade and I am blessed with many new housing estates. My constituents want to understand how we can make sure we deliver the infrastructure to meet those high targets.

I have been pleased to support my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers), who has worked hard with Ministers. I am pleased with the engagement we have had with Ministers, but I would like the Minister to clarify some of the detail she mentioned in opening the debate around the NPPF consultation and, working with some of the information that has been put in that document around genuine constraints, how that would really affect constituencies such as mine that face very high targets and constituents who are incredibly concerned about infrastructure delivery and how it will affect their way of life.

In her summing-up speech, I wonder whether the Minister can give us more information about that and see how we can protect our villages going forward, while bringing on the new houses that we have been building and desperately want more of, ensuring that it is properly led and the community are happy with the development.

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con)]

When I became the Member of Parliament for Meriden, three years ago to this day, I did so on the promise to do my utmost to protect our precious green belt. That is a promise I take seriously, and it is ever more important with the integrity of the green belt constantly coming under threat from development. In my constituency I have the Meriden Gap, the green lung of the west midlands, sandwiched between Birmingham and Coventry. It is a vital migratory throughway for wildlife in the United Kingdom—so much so that losing it would be catastrophic for wildlife across the country.

I stand by my constituents, who understand that, while we need more housing, we must do what we can to alleviate pressure on the green belt. Too often, I hear from constituents their dismay at the planning process. I am in no doubt that if we do not reform our planning system, we will disenfranchise whole communities and chip away at the very trust that people place in our democracy.

I am pleased that we are where we are today. Colleagues such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) and my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) have campaigned for common-sense reforms, and the Government have listened, with the result that we can now see light at the end of the tunnel. I am pleased that the Government are focused on brownfield first, a policy that I have championed for many years. In the west midlands, we have enough brownfield to meet our housing needs. The reforms around land banking are similarly important: too often, my constituents are flabbergasted that more green belt is being eaten up by development, when we know that developers have land banked for future developments.

I particularly want to address the Planning Inspectorate. I welcome the NPPF consultation announced today. My borough council has put forward a local plan: it has been a really difficult process and my constituents have been asked to make significant sacrifices to meet the duty to co-operate. The local plan was reviewed by the inspectorate. One site in it would have had 2,000 homes, but the inspector said, “You can’t do it—you need to do something with about 500 houses.” One site would have had an existing school moved to a new building and rebuilt, but the inspectorate effectively said, “You can have the housing, but you don’t need the new school.” That is clearly not okay. If we are building homes, communities deserve the infrastructure to go with it. The interim findings were against the mood and desires of the community that I serve. The planning inspectorate is clearly not in touch with the people it is meant to serve.

I have a few questions for the Minister. Can she confirm whether removing the duty to co-operate will enable Solihull Council to review the local plan again? If it says it can build 2,000 homes on one site, will it be allowed to do so? When it says it needs a new school, will it be allowed one?

This is about more than planning. It is about the faith that our communities place in democracy. It is about their voice. It is about their knowing that when they express their will, it will be so.

Housing Targets: Planning System

Kelly Tolhurst Excerpts

Tuesday 15th November 2022 Westminster Hall

[Gordon Henderson]

My right hon. Friend is right. Whoever sets the targets, whether at national or local level, when it comes to planning permission for development, there should be an insistence that the infrastructure is put in place before the housing is started. That can be done, but too often is not. I can give an example: we had a major development on the Isle of Sheppey many years ago, which subsequently led to 2,000 houses. At the time, permission was granted for only a couple of hundred, until such time as a new bridge and other new infrastructure was put in place. That has to be done far more often.

I have raised a number of issues today that are of concern to Swale Borough Council. However, the biggest collective grievance is the imposition of mandatory housing targets and the five-year land supply rule.

[Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing forward the debate. My constituency neighbours his, and we in Rochester and Strood have seen the stresses and strains on local services and the planning department in order to meet unrealistic housing targets, which are particularly imposed on the south-east, where we are based. Does my hon. Friend agree that the targets should be designed at a local level, and that communities should be empowered to object to unrealistic developments that do not deliver the services that the people living in those communities demand?

[Gordon Henderson]

I do agree. It is critical that local people have a say and set the targets, because unless there is local support for something, it will never work. Looking at it cynically, we might say that many local authorities are deciding to build houses in inappropriate places because they can blame the Government for the fact that they have to meet housing targets. If it was up to local people, that would not happen. From a purely cynical point of view, it would be better to let local people do that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dehenna Davison]

I thank my hon. Friend for that important point. GP numbers is something we are all concerned about. That is why the Department of Health and Social Care is taking measures to recruit more GPs right across the board. That is part of the answer, but he is right to raise concerns on the specific planning issues, and I will pass those on to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire. My hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) raised the issue of infrastructure and the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill. As part of the Bill, local authorities will be required to prepare an infrastructure delivery strategy, which will make it clearer to communities what infrastructure will be provided and when.

I believe our focus is sometimes too squarely on the numbers side of the equation, which means that we lose sight of the end goal. Numbers do, of course, matter. Thanks to the steps we took with industry at the start of the pandemic, we were able to keep home building going. We built over 216,000 new homes in 2020-21, a figure that was just a small dip from the previous year. In the circumstances, that is quite incredible. Since 2010, over 2 million additional homes have been delivered, including over 598,000 affordable homes—something that I know is on the minds of people across the country, particularly younger people hoping to get on the housing ladder for the first time.

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I appreciate what the Minister is setting out. In my constituency, because of the drive to meet unrealistic housing targets, we are having to close a successful working port to make room for flats. Companies such as ArcelorMittal and clean energy generation companies are being displaced to facilitate this drive for housing targets. Instead, we could look at the commercial development of the area and provide not only the infrastructure, but also the jobs for those who are going to live in those houses.

[Dehenna Davison]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that. I had the pleasure of briefly visiting her constituency this morning and would be grateful for the opportunity to sit down with her and discuss this further, given the local nuances involved.

The house building figures we have seen in recent years have defied expectation. It is no secret that reaching 300,000 homes a year has been an uphill challenge. Our focus in Government is on accelerating delivery so that we can make the dream of home ownership a reality for more people.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Kelly Tolhurst Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 8th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

I am happy to give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Kelly Tolhurst) and then my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Dr Evans) and my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely).

[Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

On the issue of constraints, can my right hon. Friend give us some further detail about whether the local authority could argue for constraints on the basis of economic areas, for example? Could that be an opportunity to save my dockyard from closure, following a proposal for flats to meet a housing target?

[Michael Gove]

Again, a variety of factors can be part of a sound local plan. Indeed, at the moment, permitted development right provisions that allow us to move from commercial to residential are capped at a certain size to ensure that we recognise that some commercial sites should not be moved over to residential. In a way, that is often sensible, but not always, and certainly not when we are thinking about an historic dockyard that has existed since the days of Samuel Pepys.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lisa Nandy]

Out of deference to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, of course I will rephrase my words in a manner that is far more acceptable to you: this looks awfully dodgy to me, Secretary of State. Was this signed off by him or his Department? I would certainly never disrespect the Chair by reading from my phone, so I will not do it now, but the words are there on the website of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight, and if anybody cares to look at them, they can draw their own conclusions.

I say to the Secretary of State that this matters at a time when councils and our communities around the country have had £15 billion stripped out of them by the Government. That is not what respect looks like. [Interruption.] Written into every part of the Bill is a lack of respect, and every single hon. Member who sits there chuntering and heckling, rather than standing up for their own communities, needs to look in the mirror and ask themselves whether they are doing a good job for their communities.

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I take exception to what the hon. Lady said. How dare she suggest that Government Members are not standing up for their communities when we are quite obviously aggrieved with the allegation that she has just made against a fellow colleague? So yes, we do have a right to chunter at her comments.

[Lisa Nandy]

The hon. Member absolutely has a right to challenge me on my comments, and so have her constituents. They might want to know why Kent has had £276.8 million taken from its budget by the Government over the past decade.

[Kelly Tolhurst]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Lisa Nandy]

No, I will not give way—[Interruption.]

Oral Answers to Questions

Kelly Tolhurst Excerpts

Monday 16th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Neil O’Brien]

It sounds extremely interesting, and I would be very interested in coming along. The hon. Lady is completely correct that remote working is potentially a really powerful driver for levelling up, and some of the measures in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, such as repurposing shops through the high street rental auction scheme, can potentially be really transformative for our high streets.

[Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

2. What steps he is taking to ensure that leaseholders do not have to pay for remediation work in buildings where the developer is at fault.

[The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and Minister for Intergovernmental Relations (Michael Gove)]

The Building Safety Act 2022 protects leaseholders from costs associated with historical building safety defects. Qualifying leaseholders and buildings of above 11 metres in height are fully protected from unsafe cladding remediation costs. There are also robust and far-reaching protections from non-cladding costs, with leaseholder contributions being a last resort and firmly capped. Where a freeholder is linked to the original developer, leaseholders will now pay nothing.

[Kelly Tolhurst]

Leaseholders in my constituency have been pleased with the progress that has been made through the Building Safety Act. However, it is disappointing that some developers are yet to sign up to the building safety pledge. Could my right hon. Friend outline what support is in place for leaseholders in buildings of over 11 metres who find themselves in that situation?

[Michael Gove]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that particular question. Some 45 of the biggest 53 developers have so far signed the pledge to remediate buildings for which they are responsible. However, I know there are developments in my hon. Friend’s constituency where the developers are not among those who have signed up yet. We will be moving developer by developer and owner by owner to ensure that those responsible relieve leaseholders of their obligations, and I will stay closely in touch with my hon. Friend as we make progress.

Building Safety Bill

Kelly Tolhurst Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 19th January 2022 Commons Chamber

The last point I want to make is about the need for speed. We are four and a half years on from Grenfell, and every single day that passes without the situation being resolved puts enormous strain on our constituents. They also have to shell out for the waking watches and insurance premiums that are the consequence of a problem for which they bear no responsibility whatsoever. Until the work is done, people’s flats continue to be worthless and they cannot get on with their lives. Some people have had to move out of their flat, get a new job in another part of the country and rent their flat out, and that is why it would be totally unfair to punish them for not being resident leaseholders. The sooner there is absolute clarity about what the statutory protection will look like, the sooner the work can be done and the day can eventually arrive when leaseholders can put behind them this groundhog day series of mornings when they have woken up thinking, “Oh my God, I am still stuck in this nightmare”, and instead wake up looking forward with some confidence to getting on with the rest of their lives.

[Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

I want to thank hon. Members across the House for the work they have put in. I also pay tribute to the Minister, whom I have spoken to on a number of occasions about the issues facing my constituency. I know that the Government have been listening and working really hard with colleagues to get to a place where people can be satisfied. As has been mentioned, the landscape is really complicated and the Government are trying to right some wrongs of the past.

I very much welcomed the Secretary of State’s statement last week, but I want to echo what has been said by colleagues across the House about what comes next and the protection that we will give to leaseholders. For example, at the Wharf in my constituency there has been a lack of clarity and transparency from the management company about the cladding and fire safety works that need to be carried out. The management company, Y&Y, is in the process of taking the leaseholders to a first-tier tribunal to award costs, adding a 5% commission. Since the statement last week, I have asked the management company if it could please pause this activity until the Government have moved further, but it has said that it will continue to go to the first-tier tribunal for costs. That will put some of the leaseholders in a really difficult position. Some of the people occupying those properties will not be able to pay those bills if the management company goes ahead with its actions before they have been given any security by the Minister, so I want to labour that point. We are also talking about historical payments that have been made, but this is happening as we speak.

[Sir Mike Penning]

One option for someone with a freehold property is normally to claim on their buildings insurance’s legal protection. A leaseholder has to pay the premium to the freeholder but does not have any protection. This is another area of the law that could be changed.

[Kelly Tolhurst]

My right hon. Friend is quite right. I welcome many of the amendments, and I welcome a lot of what is in the Bill. I am pleased with the extension on limitations.

During covid, a fire ripped through a building on the Causeway in my constituency. Again, it is not a high-rise block and is under 18 metres. Other hon. Members have mentioned firebreaks and the lack of such work. Coincidentally, further structural defects have been found in the investigation work carried out after the fire. They would not have been found if the fire had not ripped through the building in 2020.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) and my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) said, these buildings have been signed off. I was a marine surveyor in a previous life, and if I had signed off the builds of boats that had major defects, my professional indemnity insurance would have had to pay out and I might not have got insurance next time around because of my poor performance. How is it acceptable that people can sign off such buildings and give certificates to the residents—our constituents—who buy them? That gives the residents confidence in the quality and safety of what they are buying. We need to look at the insurance argument; it is a valid point. To be frank, it is a scandal that those poor individuals have bought those buildings. The profession has a lot to answer for, as far as I am concerned.

Ultimately, I want to press the Minister on what assurances and comfort he can give my constituents who are watching the debate and who have been following the Bill with bated breath for many months, hoping that it will be their salvation.

[Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)]

I shall speak to Opposition new clause 3 and to the amendments that, although they will not be pressed to a vote this evening, would protect leaseholders from the costs of not only cladding removal, but the remediation of non-cladding defects.

I can hardly believe that it is four and a half years since the horrific fire at Grenfell, and still we are fighting for the robust legal protection that leaseholders in my constituency and across the country need and deserve. It is too easy to assume that removing cladding is the beginning and end of the scandal; the costs of remediating non-cladding fire safety defects are just as ruinous, and blameless leaseholders should not be picking up those costs. I have seen for myself the extent of fire safety defects at various buildings in my constituency, including the Brindley House development, where the scale of the missing firebreaks and other defects was truly shocking. The people who were responsible for putting up that building were grossly negligent and, in my opinion, complete cowboys.

The regulatory failure whereby buildings were declared fit for human habitation when they contained defective or inappropriate fire safety measures, or when those measures were wholly absent, is staggering. When there were negligent and dishonest practices, the costs of remediation should not fall at the feet of my constituents. A commitment to full legal protection for leaseholders from all costs—both for the removal of dangerous cladding and for the remediation of all other fire safety defects—should have been added to the Bill today, because those issues are not new and have been the subject of intense debate for years.

Ministers and their officials know full well the contours of the debate and the issues at stake, so it is not good enough that the Government did not make such amendments today. Instead, we will have to wait to see whether full legal protection is made available when the Bill goes to the other place. We may understand parliamentary procedure and the different staging posts of a Bill, but to my constituents watching from the outside, every single staging post feels like a slap in the face when they are not given the full protection that they need and deserve.

I associate myself with the comments that have been made about insurance, particularly professional indemnity insurance, but I want to mention the increased insurance premiums that many of our constituents have faced across the country. I have been writing to the Government, the FCA and others for more than two years to ask for action against the insurance industry for the huge increase—the hike—in premiums that our cladding-affected leaseholders have faced. That increase bears no resemblance to the mitigations that our constituents have paid for to decrease the risks in their buildings.

People have paid hundreds of thousands of pounds for new fire alarm systems and internal compartmentation to try to bring the risk down in their buildings, yet that is never reflected in the insurance premiums that they have to pay. That is unconscionable. There are big questions for the wider insurance sector to answer, in addition to the buildings industry. It seems to me that someone who has profited from, for example, charging a building in my constituency an insurance premium of £700,000 in total, which has never come down, has some big questions to answer.

I hope that when the Minister brings the Bill back to this place, we get the time for adequate debate and the further amendments that we need. I hope that we take action on insurance and perhaps even—God help us—implore the FCA to do its job and stand by our constituents, who deserve the regulator’s protection. When the Bill comes back, I hope that it addresses all those issues, as it is high time that the Government did right by leaseholders.

Building Safety

Kelly Tolhurst Excerpts

Monday 10th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

I will look at the specific case of the building of just under 11 metres that the hon. Lady mentions. More broadly, I would absolutely love to be able to provide people with reassurance that from tomorrow the cloud will be lifted, but as a number of Members have pointed out, there is a complex set of interrelated problems. I believe that we have a means of dealing with them all, and I also appreciate that we need to move at speed. I will come back to the House before Easter with an update on the measures we have taken. I will work with colleagues across the House in order to ensure that we have the right statutory underpinning. Again, I want to confirm that we require everything to go right in order to be able to help everyone who is currently facing difficulties. We will do everything we can. I hope the hon. Lady will appreciate that I would not want at this stage to provide an absolute guarantee for people whose specific circumstances I am not yet familiar with.

[Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement, which I very much welcome, and I am incredibly grateful to his Ministers for the time they have spent listening to my concerns and those of residents of The Wharf in my constituency. They have suffered from a lack of transparency and clarity on the work required and whether it needs to be done. As we speak, the management company, Y&Y, is applying to the tier 1 tribunal for costs. What assurances can my right hon. Friend give my constituents, who are very concerned about any outcome that would leave them with bills of between £10,000 and £20,000, payable within the next six months?

[Michael Gove]

Absolutely the intention of today’s statement is to try to address the concerns raised so powerfully by my hon. Friend on behalf of constituents who face those imminent bills. I am really grateful to her for drawing attention to the immensely hard work being done by Ministers in the Department. The Minister for Housing, Lord Greenhalgh and the Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes), who has responsibility for rough sleeping, have all been working incredibly hard to engage with colleagues across the House and with others in order to try to move this forward. It has been a collective effort and I am very grateful to my colleagues for that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kelly Tolhurst Excerpts

Monday 29th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I do not know whether the constituents to whom he refers are in private rented sector accommodation or social tenants. In the latter case, some of the changes that we hope to make with our forthcoming social housing Bill will help to ensure that tenants are treated as they should be by all registered social landlords. We are also looking at appropriate re-regulation of the private rented sector.

[Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

Residents at The Wharf, a building of below 18 metres, are being asked by the management company to foot large bills for works to their building next year. Will my right hon. Friend outline how he will support those residents? Time is of the essence, and some residents will simply not be able to pay.

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. It is vital that we proceed as quickly as possible on 18 metre-plus buildings rendered unsafe because of aluminium composite material or other forms of cladding whose unsuitability the Grenfell tragedy laid bare, to make them safe. For some buildings of between 11 metres and 18 metres, it is important that we take a proportionate approach to safety and cost. Safety must come first, but for a number of buildings between 11 and 18 metres, the action needed can be taken quickly and may not be at the level or intensity—or certainly the cost—of action required in other buildings.

Chatham Docks

Kelly Tolhurst Excerpts

Thursday 16th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

I am extremely proud of my constituency, its people and its history, particularly our great maritime history and the connection with our river, the Medway, which has been a significant contributing factor in how the five Medway towns—Rochester, Chatham, Strood, Gillingham and Rainham—have developed over the centuries. The towns have been a hive of industry and innovation, and home to talented and exceptional people who have shaped, and continue to shape, the area that I love so much.

The fact that we have the River Medway flowing through our towns means that we have a rich industrial and commercial past and present. We have had large numbers of cement works, shipbuilders, boatbuilders, brickworks, world-class engineers, manufacturers, aerospace workers, energy producers, artists, innovators and significant industries based in the Medway towns. Our geography has played a major part in the towns’ success and meant that Chatham was chosen as home to the royal dockyard, which has been in existence since 1613 and in its heyday was the most important shipbuilding and repair dockyard in the country. The dockyard was sadly decommissioned in the 1980s, after much opposition from the people of the towns and one of my predecessors, Dame Peggy Fenner. It was a devasting blow to the Medway towns and had a major impact on its people.

Since the closure of the naval dockyard, fantastic work has been carried out by successive Governments, local authorities, businesses and investors to see the old dockyard site regenerated, making it a vibrant area with housing, leisure, universities and businesses. The historic dockyard site has been separated and preserved, with our three deep-water basins built in the mid-1800s being maintained and still in use. One is now a thriving marina. The second is used by the local community and for water sports. As recently as 2019, we welcomed HMS Medway and, in 2017, HMS Richmond and the Dutch Navy frigate HNLMS Holland. The third basin, known as Chatham docks, is a working commercial port, where many businesses are benefiting from what is a strategic, regionally significant asset, a 70-acre commercial port and manufacturing hub. It is home to successful and growing maritime and construction businesses providing over 800 jobs and 16 apprenticeships, with far more—around 1,500—in the supply chain or in some way dependent on the facility. Businesses with a combined annual turnover approaching £175 million and future investment plans for more than £60 million are occupying the land, buildings and berths.

Despite all this, the landowners have said that they feel the site is no longer viable and that too much investment would be required to repair or renew the lock gates. Therefore, they wish to close the docks and in their place build high-rise flats, with tall promises on the number of jobs that will be created there. I must point out that this is in the context of the landowner already having developed over 26 acres with high-rise flats and mixed-use retail and leisure, through which the landowner has already realised significant increases in land values. As Members might imagine, the suggestion of closing Chatham docks has united residents, businesses and political opponents against the idea.

Medway Council is currently finalising its draft local plan. It has been widely suggested that the council will redesignate Chatham docks for housing and mixed use when the draft local plan is finally published. Changing the designation of Chatham docks from commercial to housing will be another devasting blow to the area, the local economy, the businesses operating within the dock, the supply chain and the people who work there, putting an end to future use of a strategic infrastructure asset, despite there still being a need and a demand, on a site that would never ever be replaced. Redesignation within the local plan by the council would be an overwhelming contribution to the closure of the docks and to the loss of businesses, jobs and opportunities for generations to come.

Independent consultants have said that

“the economic and strategic implications of terminating the port operation make no sense for the local community and for the wider region since this move is both irreversible and not required from an economic or financial perspective.”

Much has been said by the landowner and the council about the viability of the docks, which has been challenged robustly by the businesses that operate there. That is supported by evidence and independent assessments. The cost of the repairs to the lock gates has been used as one reason why the dock needs to shut. So this could be the end and the last chance of ever seeing a large naval vessel enter Chatham again. That was never the intention when the three basins were handed over to a private company in the 1980s. In fact, the intention was that basin 3 would always be accessible for large ships, as per agreements that were put in place at the time. Development would also mean establishing a fixed access road between basin 2 and basin 3, which would landlock basin 2 forever. How very sad that, when there could be so many other options, we will oversee its destruction. I hope Medway Council learns from the regrets of London at what was done to its old dock basins in the name of regeneration, and of Liverpool at the loss of its world heritage status. I wonder whether the Minister could offer an insight into how regionally important infrastructure can be protected within the planning system.

To support a narrative around the closure of the docks, the success of the businesses operating within it has been described by some as a “moot point,” so this is an opportunity to highlight their success and continued growth. Chatham docks is a thriving port that provides high-end, value-added employment ranging from semi-skilled and skilled through to highly technical work, with staff educated to degree level and beyond. This is an area of growing businesses offering high-quality jobs, with technology and investment contributing to increased productivity locally.

The docks are well used and the operations benefit directly from the good harbour and berthing facilities on the River Medway. Such facilities are unavailable anywhere else on this stretch of the coast from Essex to Kent. Located at the docks are some very large and successful businesses, including Downton, the national logistics company, and ArcelorMittal, a leading manufacturer of steel fabric reinforcement, as well as Uplands Engineering, EPAL and other businesses whose activities include waste recycling, ship repair and the importation of timber, cement and steel products.

Examples of current and recent major infrastructure projects involving the businesses based within the docks include the Olympic park, Crossrail, Wembley stadium, the Tideway tunnel and many others. There are also marine businesses within the supply chain based on the river, including GPS Marine Contractors, which operates all over Europe. The company has said it would need to pull out of the Medway if the docks were to close.

Part of the business of GPS Marine Contractors is transporting goods by barge. It transported 2.3 million tonnes of cargo by barge to and from three major projects in London, which eliminated 7.5 million heavy goods vehicle road miles and reduced CO₂ emissions by 7,200 tonnes compared with using Euro 6 trucks. This year the company began using hydrogen-treated vegetable oil, which is 100% renewable and derived from waste vegetable oil, and it is now trialling a number of post-combustion technologies to reduce emissions further.

Scotline, one of the UK’s largest importers of timber, has also invested heavily in the Medway towns and in green maritime technology. Big names such as Hanson, Tarmac and Cemex all require the facilities at Chatham docks and the skills of the businesses within it to service their fleets of vessels to transport the aggregates needed to continue the huge building programmes in London, the south-east and beyond.

ArcelorMittal has recently announced that it is planning an additional £1 million investment in its site, following its successful bid to help build the High Speed 2 line. It expects to employ 50 new members of staff—newly trained, highly skilled and well-paid people—between now and the end of the year, with further opportunities on the horizon.

These are exactly the opportunities I would like to see more of in my constituency and the wider region, and it is testament to those businesses that they are continuing to deliver and grow with this uncertainty hanging over their future. These small examples show that Chatham docks are providing the right opportunities for local businesses to win contracts and support national projects. Closing down the site for housing would prevent any future for this type of development and growth. My constituency’s unemployment rate is in line with the national average at 5.2%, equating to 3,755 people looking for work, which is 1,585 more than in March last year. It is clear that greater certainty would allow even more confidence for businesses to invest, including major investment in the short term by Street Fuel Ltd in its south-east recycling operation and in expanding its current ship repair and dredger maintenance facilities. The future investment plans would seek to grow the existing employment figures from 800 to more than 1,000 people in the port and manufacturing jobs. This would also mean a big increase in apprenticeships offered.

Oxford Economics has advised that manufacturing sector workers, such as the ones at Chatham docks, enjoy significantly higher wages than the median average. Nationally, the median wage in the manufacturing sector is £27,430, which compares with a figure of £23,084 in the economy as a whole. This positions workers on the site at Chatham docks significantly above the national averages, generally and by sector.

The landowners have claimed that the docks are unsustainable. Who could blame a developer for being drawn to the attractiveness of a capital return on 3,600 flats over that of a commercial dock? A financial viability report produced by the Crossley Group of chartered accountants suggested that the return on capital employed is above the expected average; that the overall return and level of rental income should be sufficient to rectify the historical lack of maintenance and repairs of the docks; and that there is potential for further opportunities to increase returns. That is against a backdrop of the businesses within the docks being prepared to cover the costs of the replacement lock gates.

More worryingly, after much concern expressed by myself, councillors, residents, businesses, academics and industry, Medway Council still feels that the docks must be redesignated for housing in the local plan. That is because the Government’s blunt formula for housing targets in Medway is 1,662 a year, resulting in a total of 28,259 over the life of the plan. In itself, that is an undeliverable target for a such a small geographical area, which is already densely populated. Medway Council says that it must redesignate the docks for housing, lose these jobs and damage our local economy in order to meet the Government’s housing target. Has the Minister or his Department had discussions with the council on what its assessment is of the number of homes that it could deliver across Medway without closing the docks?

The council has also said that if it is unable to build those flats on the docks, it would need to build them elsewhere on another site within my constituency. Medway is made up of three constituencies, but nearly two thirds of the total target is being proposed to be built in Rochester and Strood, particularly on the Hoo peninsula. That is causing tremendous angst within the communities I represent. My constituents feel that their way of life is being destroyed in order to build for the overspill from London: to build flats that local people cannot afford without the provision of well-paid jobs such as the ones we will lose if the docks close. These homes are being marketed to buyers outside Medway and, would you believe it, are even being advertised in China. So really, what is my community gaining? Do the Government really want to see thriving, growing commercial businesses and regionally important infrastructure close, people being put out of work and future opportunities being lost, in the pursuit of building flats to meet arbitrary housing targets? Most people find it unbelievable that this is even being considered.

Medway has a thriving economy made up of a diverse range of businesses; it is second in terms of the concentration of transportation and storage facilities. Our local economy is uniquely reliant on this sector, and proposals by the landowner to move businesses to Sheerness do not offer an alternative solution. First, there are not the same facilities and the businesses would be unable to operate in the same way—that is if this offer of moving those businesses to Sheerness, which has been much talked of, ever actually materialises for these businesses. It is absurd to think that businesses that are using a unique piece of infrastructure can just be relocated anywhere.

The majority of workers are local to Medway: 20% live on the doorstep of the docks and 65% live in the Medway towns. There is also an associated supply chain that stretches across the local area and the wider region. An economic impact report has concluded that the docks generate a total economic benefit of £258 million; for comparison, that is 10 times greater than the published economic benefit generated by our much-loved and promoted Historic Dockyard Chatham part of the site, which no one would ever suggest closing to make way for flats.

Our coast and waterways are one of the United Kingdom’s greatest assets. We are blessed with the River Medway, which has shaped our towns historically and has an important role to play in our future. We have increased our focus on the Government’s ambition of achieving net zero carbon emissions by 2050, and it is vital that we support resources such as Chatham docks and the work of the investing, innovating and nimble businesses that use our waterways, which are essential to our moving forward with decarbonising the economy. With our close links, we are uniquely situated to reduce the time and cost of trade between Medway and London.

The dock operations benefit directly from good harbour and berthing facilities that offer the opportunity to significantly improve the position with respect to the climate change emergency declared by Medway Council and the key outcome of achieving a clean, green environment. There is huge potential environmental cost to Medway from the closure of the docks, with a massive increase of 12,610 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions a year through the loss of on-site recycling, engineering and the transportation of finished goods that can currently be transported by river. We should be building a strategy and working with some of our impressive local businesses based at the docks, in the supply chain or operating on the river, creating opportunities to contribute further to our carbon reduction targets and sustainable development of our local economy for the future.

The message is loud and clear: the closure of Chatham docks would mean short-term gain for some, to the detriment of the long-term future and prosperity of the Medway towns. At the heart of the 2019 Conservative manifesto was the importance of place and community to so many people across the country. We recognised that allowing communities to make sure that their town’s future is in the hands of the people who live there is the best way to ensure that they can thrive. If we allow Chatham docks to turn into housing, we will be failing to live up to that promise. It is the last remaining and most significant facility left on the river today; if it is lost, we will lose not only jobs from Medway, but future opportunities for generations to come. Once it is lost, we will never get it back—in today’s world, the impressive docks structure would never be built because the expense would be far too great.

In my maiden speech on 25 June 2015, I quoted from my predecessor Dame Peggy Fenner:

“Does my right hon. Friend believe that the people of Rochester and Chatham elected me to support a Government that would do what has just been done to their dockyard? My right hon. Friend need not reply. I shall tell him the answer: they did not, and I will not.”—[Official Report, 25 June 1981; Vol. 7, c. 391.]

Forty years on, the similarities are extremely sad, but this time closure is avoidable.

I hope the Minister will agree that common sense will prevail and that the right decisions will be made for the people of my constituency, rather than the opportunity being taken to put cash into just another developer’s pocket, losing an asset like Chatham docks for generations to come.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I remind the Minister that at 5 pm the Whip will again move that the House adjourn; I will then propose the Question so that the Minister can continue.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kelly Tolhurst Excerpts

Monday 11th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)]

What steps he is taking to improve security of tenure in the private rented sector.

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

The Government are committed to enhancing renters’ security by abolishing no-fault evictions. During the covid-19 pandemic, our collective efforts have been focused on protecting people during the outbreak. This has included introducing longer notice periods and preventing evictions at the height of the pandemic on public health grounds. We will introduce a renters’ reform Bill very soon.

[Navendu Mishra]

I thank the Minister for her response. Hundreds of thousands of people are at risk of being evicted when the ban is lifted. The covid crisis has highlighted underlying problems in the private rented sector, including families being forced into expensive and insecure housing. Local organisations in my constituency, including Stockport Tenants Union and ACORN, have long campaigned to end section 21 evictions, but when will the Minister deliver her manifesto commitment to do the same?

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. We are committed to abolishing no-fault evictions under section 21. Obviously, we have already taken some action. Last week, for example, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State increased the ban on evictions for a further six weeks. We have also introduced six months’ notice, which means that people who receive an order now will find that it will not go through the courts until July. We are committed to making sure that we protect anybody who is suffering homelessness. That has been borne out by the level of investment that we have put into the sector during the pandemic. We will keep all these measures under review.

[Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab) [V]]

Millions of hard-working people are excluded from every covid scheme—newly self-employed or employed, small business owners, people with mixed employment, even some on maternity or paternity leave who have lost work because of covid but have little or no Government support. The Government’s own stats show that hundreds of thousands have fallen behind on rent. A loophole in the new evictions rules means that anyone with more than six months in arrears is at risk of eviction. When the Secretary of State said that no one should lose their home because of coronavirus, did he or did he not mean that?

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I regret that the hon. Lady does not recognise the unprecedented steps that this Government have taken in an unprecedented global pandemic to support renters and people experiencing homelessness and rough sleeping. Our data show that our measures to protect renters are working. We have had a 54% reduction in households owed a homelessness duty to the end of an assured tenancy from April to June compared with January to March. Ministry of Justice stats show no possessions recorded between April and September. We have put a ban on evictions, given a six-month notice period, extended buy-to-let mortgage holidays, provided £700 million to support rough sleepers and those at risk of homelessness, provided 3,300 next steps accommodation, given £6.4 billion to local authorities to deal with the impact of covid, helped 29,000 people with Everyone In, and saw 19,000 move on to settled protection. The list goes on and on. We know that people are experiencing hardship in these times, and this Government will continue to review and take the necessary action to ensure people in this country are protected.

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

What support the Government are providing to help local authorities experiencing a reduction in income as a result of the covid-19 outbreak.