Long-term Plan for Housing

Lee Rowley Excerpts

Tuesday 19th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety (Lee Rowley)]

I apologise on behalf of the Department for the points you have just highlighted, Madam Deputy Speaker.

With permission, I would like to make a statement on the Government’s commitment to house building and the planning policy reforms we are making today.

This Government want to build more homes in the right places, more quickly, more beautifully and more sustainably. We know that the right way to deliver this is through a reformed planning system. Today, the Secretary of State and I are laying out our plan for that reform, and we are clear that it is only through up-to-date local plans that local authorities can deliver for communities, protect the land and the assets that matter most, and create the conditions for more homes to be delivered.

Having plans in place unlocks land for homes, for hospitals and general practitioner centres, for schools, for power grid connections and more. It lays the foundations for our economic growth and the levelling up of our communities. The first change we are making today is to update the national planning policy framework. We consulted on a series of proposals last December and received more than 26,000 responses, which we have worked through in detail.

The resulting update builds on the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 and delivers on the intent set out by the Secretary of State last year, and it does so in a way that will promote building the right homes in the right places with the right infrastructure, which will ensure that the environment is protected and give local people a greater say on where and where not to place new, beautiful development.

I will now summarise the key changes being made to the framework today, and hon. Members should refer to the consultation response and the framework itself for the published policies. First, the standard method for assessing local housing need figures has sometimes been difficult to apply in some areas, and has been blind to the exceptional characteristics of local communities. The new NPPF makes it clear that the outcome of the standard method is an advisory starting point in plan making for establishing an area’s housing requirement.

The revised NPPF also now provides more clarity on what may constitute exceptional circumstances for using an alternative method to assess housing need. The framework is also clear that the urban uplift should be accommodated in the urban areas in which it is applied, and should not be exported unless there is a voluntary cross-boundary agreement in place. New homes are most desperately needed in urban areas, so it is essential that city councils plan properly for local people.

Secondly, given the importance of the green belt to so many, the new NPPF is clear that there is generally no requirement on local authorities to review or alter green belt boundaries. Unlike Labour’s plan to concrete over the countryside, we will not impose top-down release of green-belt land against the wishes of local communities. Where a relevant local planning authority chooses to conduct a review, existing national policy will continue to expect that green-belt boundaries are altered only where exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced and justified, and this should only be through the preparation or updating of plans. The Government are making no changes to the rules that govern what can and cannot be built on green-belt land, but we are clarifying in guidance where brownfield development can occur on the green belt, provided that the openness of the green belt is not harmed.

Thirdly, the Government are clear that the character of an existing area should be respected, particularly in the historic suburbs of our great towns and cities. The new NPPF therefore recognises that there may be situations in plan making where significant uplifts in urban residential densities would be inappropriate, as they would be wholly out of character with that existing area. In these cases, authorities need not plan for such development. That will apply where there is a design code that is adopted, or will be adopted, as part of the local plan. I know the shadow Minister will sympathise with this change, given that he recently opposed 1,500 new homes in his constituency due to the impact on Greenwich’s local character.

Fourthly, where an up-to-date plan is in place—a plan less than five years old—and contained a deliverable five-year supply of land when examined by the inspector, authorities will no longer be required to update that supply annually. This change provides those authorities with additional protection from the presumption in favour of sustainable development. We are also fully removing what are known as the 5% and 10% buffers, which could be applied to an authority’s housing land supply. A transitional arrangement will ensure that decision making on live applications is not affected, thus avoiding disruption to applications in the system. For authorities that have not yet passed examination but are either at examination, regulation 18 or regulation 19 stage, and have both a policy map and proposed allocations, there will be a two-year grace period in which they need to demonstrate only a four-year housing land supply for decision making. That is a strong incentive for councils to now do the right thing and agree a local plan.

Fifthly, local communities that have worked hard to put neighbourhood plans in place should not be penalised for the failure of their council to ensure an up-to-date local plan. The new NPPF therefore extends protection for neighbourhood plans from speculative development from two to five years, where those plans allocate at least one housing site. The updated framework also gives greater support to self-build, custom-build and community-led housing, and to encouraging the delivery of older people’s housing, including retirement housing, housing with care and care homes.

Next, the NPPF cements the role of beauty and placemaking in the planning system; it now expressly uses the word “beautiful” in relation to “well-designed places”. It also now requires greater “visual clarity” on design requirements set out in planning conditions and supports gentle density through the promotion of mansard roof development. Finally, the new NPPF also strengthens protections for agricultural land, by being clear that consideration should be given to the availability of agricultural land for food production in development decisions. The NPPF also supports the Government’s energy security strategy, by giving significant weight to the importance of energy efficiency in the adaptation of existing buildings, while protecting heritage.

With the updated NPPF now in place, the other reforms we are making today are focused on setting higher expectations for performance. Those who operationalise the system—local authorities, the Planning Inspectorate and statutory consultees—must live up to their responsibilities. To support that, we are taking action on four fronts. First, we will ensure greater transparency, because exposing what is really going on in a system sparks action. So we will publish a new local authority performance dashboard in 2024, and pull back the veil on the use of extension of time agreements, which in too many instances are concealing poor performance.

Secondly, we have been providing, and will continue to provide, additional financial support. That includes the increased planning fees that went live a fortnight ago, as well as a range of funds to tackle backlogs and improve capability. Thirdly, we will tackle slow processes, with Sam Richards leading a review into the statutory consultee system and a greater focus from the Planning Inspectorate where planning committees are seeing their decisions overturned on appeal.

Finally, we will intervene where we need to. The Secretary of State has issued a direction to seven of the worst authorities in terms of plan making, requiring them to publish a plan timetable within 12 weeks of the publication of the new NPPF. Should they fail, we will consider further intervention. We are also designating two additional authorities for their decision-making performance and we will review the thresholds for designation to make sure to make sure we are not letting off the hook authorities that should be doing better.

We are also taking action in London, because the homes needed by the capital are simply not being built and opportunities for urban brownfield regeneration go begging as a result of the Mayor’s anti-housing policy and approach. A review launched today will identify where changes to policy could speed up the delivery of much-needed homes. If directing change in London becomes necessary, this Government will do that.

In designing these reforms we have aimed to facilitate desirable development, constrained only by appropriate protections. That is a balance I am confident we have struck.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. Nothing screams long-term housing plan quite like a statement from the 16th Housing Minister since 2010 outlining the fourth set of changes to the national planning policy framework in as many years. As ever with this Government, the reality in no way matches the rhetoric, as we see with the headline announcements made to the press—not this House—over the past 24 hours. Not only are they seemingly at odds with the Government’s stated wish to give local communities more of a say about the placement of new developments; the truth is that the ink will barely be dry on outline plans for the proposed expansion of Cambridge by the time the general election is called. The punitive and nakedly political interventions that Ministers are working up for London ahead of the mayoral election will, likewise, do nothing in practice to resolve the constraints that they themselves have imposed on house building in the capital, not least by leaving industry completely in the dark when it comes to second staircase regulations for tall buildings, at a cost of thousands of new homes.

When it comes to meaningful support for small and medium-sized house builders, the Government have been talking, literally for years, about the various ways in which they need greater support while presiding over their continued decline. Far from unlocking a new generation of home building, as the Secretary of State has claimed, the detailed changes being made to the NPPF today will almost certainly further suppress collapsing house building rates. Let us be clear: although there have been minor tweaks, the changes being made are those that the Government, in their weakness, promised the so-called “Planning Concern Group” of Tory Back Benchers they would enact back in December last year in order to stave off a rebellion on the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill. That is precisely why the members of that group are so pleased with the ”compromise” they have secured today.

I have a number of detailed questions for the Minister, starting with the impact of these changes on overall housing supply. Whether it is the softening of land supply requirements or the listing of various local characteristics that would justify a deviation from the now only advisory standard method, can he confirm that the changes made to the NPPF, taken together, will give those local authorities that wish to take advantage of it the freedom to plan for less housing than their nominal local targets imply? If he disputes that that will be their effect, what technical evidence can he provide to demonstrate that these changes can be reconciled with a boost to housing delivery?

I turn to the Government’s 300,000 annual housing target, which the Secretary of State recommitted himself to today. How on earth does the Minister imagine that the changes that have been made to the rules around plan making will help the Government finally meet that target, particularly given that the arbitrary 35% urban uplift has been retained but the requirement for local planning authorities to try to meet it out of area in co-operation with their neighbours if they cannot do so alone has been removed? Can the Minister finally provide a convincing explanation of how and when the Government’s 300,000 homes a year target will be met? Or is it the case that it remains alive in name only, abandoned in practice even if not formally abolished?

Let me turn to local plan coverage. In many ways, the revised NPPF speaks to a planning framework that does not actually exist, because under this Government we have a local plan-led system in which only a minority of local authorities have up-to-date plans. According to the most recent figures, just 33% have local plans that have been adopted or reviewed within the past five years and only 10 new plans have been submitted for examination this year—in part, this is because of the chilling effect of the Government’s December 2022 concession. Yet only now, in the dying days of this Government, are Ministers seemingly getting a bit more serious about intervening to drive up coverage.

In The Times today, the Secretary of State announced a new three-month deadline for up-to-date local plans to be submitted. Will the Minister outline the thinking behind that timeframe and tell us what happens if multiple local authorities fail to meet the new March deadline? In his Times interview, the Secretary of State suggested that local authorities that miss that deadline will have development forced on them and their powers to delay applications removed. Can the Minister tell us precisely how that would be achieved? The Secretary of State also suggested that recalcitrant councils will be stripped of their planning responsibilities. Can the Minister tell us who will take them on, given that the Planning Inspectorate clearly does not have the capacity to do so?

Finally, although it is the Government’s contention that the changes made today will boost local plan coverage, surely the Minister recognises that even if that is ultimately their effect, it will be at the cost of overall housing supply because it will entail the enactment of numerous plans that will not meet the needs of local communities in full. In short, isn’t the truth of the matter that today’s changes entail a deliberate shift from a plan-led system focused on making at least some attempt to meet housing need, to one geared toward providing only what the politics of any given area allow, with all the implications that entails for the housing crisis and economic growth?

[Lee Rowley]

I thank the Opposition spokesperson for his comments, which I will address in turn. He started by saying that this is the fourth time we have updated the guidance in the last few years. If his criticism is that we are willing to listen, be flexible and adaptable, and recognise the differences between his constituency of Greenwich and Woolwich and the constituencies of Government Back Benchers, then he is correct. We are willing to be flexible and adaptable, but we also recognise that we need to build more homes; we just want to ensure that they are built in the right places, which is exactly what today’s update seeks to do.

The difference between my party and that of the Opposition spokesperson is that we recognise the nuance in the discussion. Within the NPPF, we are trying to accommodate the fact that different areas and parts of the country have to be approached in different ways. While the policies of the hon. Gentleman’s party move backwards and forwards on different days of the week, we will continue to ensure that we build more homes—in the right place, with the right infrastructure and with the support of the community. In the long run, that will ensure that we make progress on housing in general.

The hon. Gentleman asked a question about freedom to plan. The housing needs assessment will be made by all councils, but councils can make a case if there is an exceptional circumstance that applies in their local area. If that were not possible, there would be no exceptions for any council, local authority or community anywhere, which would be completely unnuanced. However, on a macro level it remains the case that we will seek to build more houses. When councils have plans in place, they tend to deliver more houses than when such plans are not in place, so if we can get more plans in place, we will have the opportunity to build more homes that have the consent and support of the community in which they will be built.

The hon. Gentleman asked about urban uplift and the removal of co-operation with neighbours. We uplifted the targets and expectations on the basis that those houses would go into cities and would not be exported into the countryside near cities, because the whole point was to acknowledge the infrastructure in those cities. There are schools in London that are closing because insufficient numbers of children are using them. We do not want to export housing elsewhere; we want to use that infrastructure—including transport links and educational establishments—as was intended when it was built.

This is not about whether we believe in a plan-led system or not—we clearly do. It is about the fact that this Government are getting on with the hard job of striking a balance, recognising the nuance and ensuring that more progress is being made, versus the Opposition stating that they want to build houses, but then voting against that happening in relation to nutrient neutrality. If they put their money where their mouth was and did what they say they will do, they would have the ability to stand up and make such arguments consistently. They do not and, as a result, I will not listen to them.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

Before talking about the general policy, may I mention one small point? In paragraph 22 of his statement, the Minister talks about energy efficiency in heritage buildings. In Ambrose Place in Worthing—including at the house of one of my neighbours, where Harold Pinter lived—people are being told that they can have only secondary glazing, not double glazing, because it is in a conservation area. I hope that the Minister will talk with experts and say that double glazing is acceptable in reasonable circumstances, when people want to improve the energy efficiency of their homes.

On the general point, the Minister mentions the green belt. According to one calculation, there are 16 green belts in England, none of which is in East Sussex or West Sussex. I interpret his words as meaning “green gaps”: an expression used by the Secretary of State when he commented on the problems of Worthing, where every single bit of grass—the vineyards, the golf courses and the green fields—between Worthing and its neighbours to the west is subject to a planning application. It is important that the inspectors in his Department do not come along, as they did over the land north of Goring station, to Chatsmore Farm and the Goring Gap and say that even if Worthing built on every bit of lawn in town, it would not meet the full target, and yet give permission to build on that farm, which distinguishes Worthing from its neighbours.

It is also important to follow up the Minister’s words about intense development in the centre of villages, towns and cities, so that there are homes in high-density accommodation that elderly people can choose to live in, so that their family homes can be freed for families. The idea that most of the development on our green fields is for families is for the birds—it is for people on their second or third homes. I think people who are my sort of age ought to have the choice to live securely in high-thermal efficiency apartments, with services that do not require cars, and where they can live more easily and happily.

[Lee Rowley]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about energy efficiency, which I am happy to talk to him about in more detail. He is a champion for Worthing West. I have family who live close to Worthing, and know the Goring Gap well. He makes a strong point about the importance of preserving character and ensuring communities build the right homes in the right places, while recognising that there are places where that should not be the case. I am always happy to talk to him about that.

[Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)]

This morning, the Secretary of State complained about house prices. If the Government are now rightly acknowledging the impact of spiralling mortgage payments on our constituencies, when will they apologise for the cause of that—their disastrous mini-Budget?

[Lee Rowley]

I am glad to see that the talking points have already started from the Opposition Back Benches. Despite choosing not to acknowledge it, the hon. Lady will know that interest rates have risen across the world, followed by a normalisation of interest rates for a number of months as a recognition of changed economic circumstances. If the hon. Lady and her party want to continue to make mischief and nuisance about that, it is their right to do so, but that does not accurately reflect what has happened. This Government will always try to work through those difficult situations and improve things for the people of this country.

[Dame Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend confirm that over the past 12 months, in writing and at the Dispatch Box, Ministers have consistently said that when making a local plan, planning authorities will be able to take into account historically high house building levels by lowering the amount of housing they need to plan for? Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council has delivered exceptional levels of house building, with new homes for 150,000 people over the last five decades. How will the Government now make good on their year-long commitment to recognise Basingstoke’s almost unique position by doing whatever is needed to support the planning authority to successfully agree a revised local plan, with significantly lower overall house building figures because of the very high amount of house building over the last five decades?

[Lee Rowley]

My right hon. Friend is right that we consulted on that subject. In recognition of that consultation, we have chosen not to take forward the over-supply point at this time, but we are open to looking at it and reviewing it in the future. I accept Basingstoke’s particular circumstances, and have spoken to her separately about the recognition that there has been substantial building in Basingstoke over many decades. I am happy to talk to her about the exceptional circumstances provision and look at exactly how that may apply to Basingstoke.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

York is now the 15th least affordable place to live in the country. My constituents will have no confidence in what the Minister and the Secretary of State have set out today, because they have been waiting for a local plan for 76 years and counting. The sticking point has been with the Government Department, not the will of the Labour council. When will York receive its local plan, be able to protect the precious space we have and build the tenure of housing we need, as opposed to developers moving in and building luxury flats that no one can afford?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lee Rowley]

We are keen to ensure that local plans progress as quickly as possible, not just for York but for every other council that chooses to pursue the process, and we will continue to add support and capacity into the system to ensure that that happens.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

In the written ministerial statement—as opposed to the oral statement we have just heard—there is a strong suggestion that there will be a review of London and the centre of London. One challenge we face in suburban London is that planning applications for high-density, very tall buildings—normally comprising units of two bedrooms, two bathrooms and one shared living space—are very suitable for young professionals, but totally useless for families. There is a shortage of family accommodation in outer London, and people would welcome more houses but not high-density flats.

[Lee Rowley]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: a balance must be struck. We will review the situation in London. We do not think that it is acceptable; we do not think that the Mayor has done his job in this regard and we will be reviewing that. We also recognise—I hope my comments earlier indicated this—that there are places in urban areas where character is very important, and we need to make sure that there is an appropriate balance in that regard.

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

Liberal Democrat-led St Albans City and District Council is rightly pressing ahead with the development of its local plan, after the previous Conservative administration had its plan thrown out by the inspector. Two years ago, I wrote to the Government requesting additional funding so that we could accelerate our plan-making process, but the Government said no. I then requested that they allow us to charge developers the full cost of processing applications, but, even with all the tinkering, we are still not able to do that, and taxpayers in St Albans are still subsidising developers to the tune of £3 million a year to process their applications. Today the Government have asked our local council to publish a timetable in the next 12 weeks, but if Ministers and their officials used Google, they would find it on the website.

Apparently, Ministers have announced that the new protections apply to areas with local plans, but not to areas with draft local plans. That means that in St Albans, villages such as Colney Heath, which are besieged by inappropriate development, will not benefit from the protections. Will the Minister confirm whether our local district council and planning inspectors can firmly say no to inappropriate, speculative development, or is this just another empty promise from this Government?

[Lee Rowley]

I believe that the Liberal Democrats have been in charge of St Albans City and District Council since 2019. That is four and a half years of opportunity to put a local plan in place. It is on the Liberal Democrats for failing to do so. Perhaps the Liberal Democrats could explain whether, as part of that local plan, they will take their share of the 380,000 homes that their conference said they needed to build in the future.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

May I ask the Minister for a very clear answer on the controversial matter of housing targets? Basically, there are two ways of doing it: we can have mandatory targets, where the man in Whitehall knows best and hands down to local authorities a target with which they have to comply whether or not it is sensible, or we can have advisory targets, where the Department can recommend a target, but if the locally elected councillors and the people whom they represent know that it is too high and can give strong reasons why—for instance, if their district or borough has a large amount of green belt—they can legitimately push back in their plan and offer a lower number. So there is the mandatory option, which is the Labour option, and the advisory option, which is the Conservative option. Is my understanding correct?

[Lee Rowley]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his question. For the first time ever, the NPPF says, at paragraph 61:

“The outcome of the standard method is an advisory starting-point”.

Then there are potentially exceptional circumstances that can be discussed with a representative of the Government—in this case the Planning Inspectorate—and the case can be made and then discussed. If that is accepted, an alternative approach can be taken.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

Our country is facing a housing crisis and, after more than 13 long years, the Government have utterly failed the nation. Data from Glenigan published this week show that planning consents are at a record low, 20% down on last year, and they are due to become the lowest in a decade next year. Fifty-eight local housing authorities have scrapped or delayed their local plan as a direct result of the Secretary of State’s flip-flopping on housing targets last year. Does the Minister agree that the Government’s flip-flopping and dither and delay are having a significant downward effect on planning and housing delivery?

[Lee Rowley]

I have the greatest of respect for the hon. Gentleman, but we need to have a serious conversation about this. Planning consents are down because planning applications are down, and that is due to the global economic challenges. [Interruption.] Labour’s Front-Bench team do not want to accept that there are global economic challenges. That just demonstrates why they are so unready for the government of this country. We are trying to make sure, first, that we work through the global financial challenges and, secondly, that we still build the homes. One way that we undermine the building of more homes—the kind of homes that I know the hon. Gentleman and I would both like to see—is by not taking communities with us. What we seek to do today is inject more balance into the system so that we can take more communities with us. If we can get more plans in place, it usually means that more homes are delivered in the first place.

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for recognising the hard work that local communities such as Hallow, Clifton upon Teme, Kempsey and Welland have done in my largely rural constituency to develop neighbourhood plans, the strengthening of which has been announced today. None the less, those communities are being let down by the fact that our council is run by the independents and Greens, who do not have a local plan in place. Can he tell us whether the additional protections from speculative development will be immediate or retrospective? When will they take effect?

[Lee Rowley]

I am a huge fan of neighbourhood plans, as are many of my colleagues across the House. They give communities the opportunity to get involved in the planning process and to get into the detail. They also often demonstrate that having honest conversations with people about planning can take some of the challenge out of the system. We are updating the NPPF with regard to neighbourhood plans, and we are strengthening them, as my hon. Friend outlined. The NPPF is extant from the moment that it is uploaded. There are some indications at the back of the plan where policies take priority at a later date, but we are committed to putting neighbourhood planning at the centre of our planning policy, because we think that it is very successful and helpful for our communities.

[Andrew Western (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I am somewhat perplexed by the renewed focus on strengthening local plans given the abolition of the mandatory housing targets that underpin delivery against them. Indeed, the Minister appears to be outlining a situation in which local authorities can game the system and deliberately plan to under-deliver if they have an up-to-date local plan, but a local authority that is delivering can be stripped of its planning powers because its plan is not up to date. If the Minister is so committed to accelerating housing delivery, why is he creating a situation in which we are both preventing greenfield building and stopping significant increases to urban density?

[Lee Rowley]

We are not preventing increases of urban density. Indeed, we want that to happen. We recognise that there are considerations around things such as second staircases, which we are working at pace to resolve as quickly as possible. We want more homes. We recognise that the infrastructure is often in place in urban areas, and we are keen to take up that infrastructure to be able to unlock those homes for people who need them.

[Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)]

If I may take the Minister back to paragraph 61, will he confirm that the inclusion for the very first time in the NPPF of the words “advisory starting point” will have an impact on both the level of targets set and the weight to be given to a target? How, in practice, will that change the approach taken by planning inspectors when they approve plans and decide on individual planning appeals?

[Lee Rowley]

It is absolutely the case that the purpose of amending the national planning policy framework today is so that this information and wording, and the insertion of the advisory starting point and everything that follows, are taken into account in the process, and it is important that the planning inspector does that. Obviously, every single council is different, and we have set out the reality that each individual council will need to go through this process, but that should absolutely be taken into account.

[Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)]

I must say to the Minister that we have been here before with housing targets; I seem to remember Mr John Prescott—Lord Prescott—putting this forward. One of the problems we have is that, in a vast area that includes places such as the Somerset levels, Exmoor and many others, sometimes it is very difficult to build housing. However, where we have an irresponsible council—Liberal Democrat, obviously, in Mid Devon—we have another problem, because they do not care. They do not listen. They are there just to cause trouble at every level. The Minister must make sure that the safeguards are there for people who live in these areas—not hope; we need actual safeguards.

[Lee Rowley]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is one reason why we have been clear with a number of councils today that they need to get on with things. The whole point is that we put in place a process and a system that work and, for those actors that do not go through it, there are consequences.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

In constituencies such as mine, the green belt is vital to protecting us from the urban sprawl of Birmingham, so I welcome the statement, so far as it goes with its protections for the green belt. However, can the Minister provide greater clarity on the matter of targets? It would be very helpful to have a clear understanding of what is meant by the advisory starting point and its impact on any ongoing mechanisms to impose the quotas of other authorities on a neighbour.

[Lee Rowley]

On my right hon. Friend’s second point—I am grateful to her for raising it—the duty to co-operate has been superseded. The point of the advisory starting point is to be very clear that individual circumstances might apply within the context of the need to build more homes in the right place. I cannot pre-empt or suggest exactly what that will mean in all instances. There is an example in the NPPF of where we think that is likely to be relevant, but obviously that will be discussed on a case-by-case, council-by-council basis.

[Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for his statement. I am encouraged by his words on provision of care and retirement housing and his focus on design quality. I have no doubt that we need more homes, but green spaces and the green belt are of critical concern in Harrogate and Knaresborough. Can he tell me a little more about the safeguards for the green belt under the Conservative party, particularly compared with the Labour party?

[Lee Rowley]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct about the importance of older people’s housing. We are currently in the process of supporting an older people’s housing taskforce, and I look forward to its recommendations about how to improve it for the long run. The green belt protections remain today as they were yesterday. What we are putting around them is a clearer process about where the case for exceptional circumstances can be made. It will be down to individual councils, with their individual circumstances, individual beauty and individual environment, to make that case where they feel it is appropriate to do so.

[Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)]

Communities in South Ribble, including Eccleston, Mawdesley and Croston, are subject to Chorley Council. I understand that Chorley is one of only two councils designated for poor planning performance. Does the Minister believe that that poor performance is due to Chorley’s failure to produce a local plan to protect South Ribble residents from inappropriate planning applications?

[Lee Rowley]

My hon. Friend is a huge champion for her constituents in South Ribble. We need local plans in place. I saw when I first became an MP in North East Derbyshire, where the Labour council failed to put a local plan in place, the huge issues that causes for communities. I know there are other councils all around the country that fail to do that, and it causes so many issues. We have spoken about some of the challenges in South Ribble, and I am keen to work with my hon. Friend and to talk more about them over the weeks ahead. It is important that plans are put in place. Where councils are not performing—where they have not passed the threshold for the number of applications they need to pass or have lost too many on appeal—we will designate and we will be clear that changes are needed.

[Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)]

I place on record my gratitude to the Secretary of State for agreeing, this time last year, to put stronger protections for land use in food production into the NPPF, and to my hon. Friend the Minister for confirming today that they have survived the consultation period. Will he clarify, first, that the new language in the NPPF is a binary test where land is either used in food production or is not, ending the dancing-on-the-head-of-a-pin lawyer’s paradise of arguing about what is best and most versatile, and, secondly, that the character test he spoke of applies to rural character as well as in urban environments?

[Lee Rowley]

On my hon. Friend’s second point, absolutely. On his first point, I will read the footnote to paragraph 1.81 of the NPPF:

“The availability of agricultural land used for food production should be considered”.

I hope that is helpful.

[Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for much of today’s announcement. In seats such as mine, it does not really matter what the target is when such a high proportion of the homes that are built are just used as short-term holiday lets. This time a year ago, we agreed to another consultation, which finished this June. I ask again: when might we have the results of that consultation and steps to ensure that, when we build homes in communities such as mine, those homes are affordable for the people who live and work there?

[Lee Rowley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend not just for her question, which gives us only a few seconds to talk about the matter, but for her Adjournment debate a few days ago, when we had a much longer period to talk about it. She makes a very important point; I know how important it is to colleagues in the south-east and elsewhere and, although I am not able to give her a date today, I hope to have more on that very soon.

[Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)]

I welcome what the Minister says on the importance of neighbourhood plans, on agricultural land and on brownfield development. Can he clarify what the consequences are if a district council has already embarked on a consultation on a local plan but, having studied the NPPF in detail, sees stuff there that it wants to embrace and chooses to adopt elements of the NPPF, which then leads to a consequential delay?

[Lee Rowley]

There is a long section at the end of the revised NPPF that explains the arrangements for councils that are in the process. We are trying to strike a delicate balance, ensuring that councils go through that process to the extent that they are able to, while recognising that those in an earlier part of the process may want to consider some of the changes. It generally is the case, if I recall correctly, that when councils have passed the regulation 19 stage—the second consultation—there is a greater expectation that they will stay in the process. It is ultimately for them to make their own judgments, but the Government will be watching the result.

[Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

I think overall that this is a very good plan and very well delivered by the Minister. I welcome in particular the remarks on character, on beauty, on the importance of agricultural land, on the importance of community support and on the fact that targets are a start point and not an end point. Those are significant changes that mean that communities can be listened to. Will the Minister just confirm that the exceptional circumstance will be available—perhaps even welcome—for examples including islands separated by sea, such as my Isle of Wight constituency?

[Lee Rowley]

The footnotes to paragraph 61 use as an example

“areas that are islands with no land bridge that have a significant proportion of elderly residents.”

I hope my hon. Friend will welcome the fact that that sounds very much like the Isle of Wight.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

The prize for patience and perseverance, with the last question of the year, goes to Nigel Mills.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

It is a privilege, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Five years ago, the export of houses from Derby made a local plan in Amber Valley impossible, but there is no reason for delay now. Does the Minister agree that there is no reason for the Labour-run council not to have made more rapid progress with the pretty reasonable plan it inherited in May? Will he also confirm what the consequence will be if the 12-week direction he has issued today does not result in rapid progress, to ensure that residents in Amber Valley get a local plan sometime soon?

[Lee Rowley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour, who I know speaks up for his constituents. Labour won Amber Valley Borough Council and it now needs to own ensuring that the council delivers on its responsibilities. If Labour has made promises to Amber Valley residents that it cannot fulfil, that is on Labour. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of councils to make sure that they have a plan in place, and to do that at the earliest possible opportunity. Where Labour councils such as Amber Valley are failing to do that and are speaking out of both sides of their mouths, it is right that he calls that out. Amber Valley needs to get on with its plan.

Draft Higher-Risk Buildings (Keeping and Provision of Information etc.) (England) Regulations 2023

Lee Rowley Excerpts

Wednesday 13th December 2023 General Committees

[The Chair]

Before we begin, I remind Members that mobile phones should be switched off. If you want to catch my eye, you need to bob.

[The Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety (Lee Rowley)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Higher-Risk Buildings (Keeping and Provision of Information etc.) (England) Regulations 2023.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. As the Committee is aware, there has been a long-standing and very important process in Government to make sure that the regulation on buildings post Grenfell is improved, and that safety is at the heart of all regulation. We have introduced legislation—the Building Safety Act 2022 and regulations in affirmative and negative statutory instruments—to do that.

These draft regulations are part of a package that forms a milestone for building safety in the UK. Through the overall package of regulations, the Government seek to meet their commitment to make sure that buildings are safe now and that people feel safe in future and for generations to come.

The regulations set out the golden thread information that the people responsible for an occupied higher-risk building—known as the accountable persons—need to keep. They set out the information that accountable persons need to share with each other, other people responsible for the safety of the building, residents and owners of flats in the building itself. That includes sharing information with fire and rescue services to help better deliver responses in the event of an emergency.

The documentation for this statutory instrument is significant and is intended to indicate all the different elements of the data that needs to be provided, so that there is clear information—a clear golden thread—that explains what the building is and helps in the event of an emergency.

Understandably, the regulations set out certain limited exceptions when the information does not need to be provided—for instance, if there are issues around security, commercial confidentiality or data protection. They also seek to make small amendments to other regulations: the Higher-Risk Buildings (Key Building Information etc.) (England) Regulations 2023, which clarify what part of a building an accountable person is responsible for when there are multiple accountable persons for the same higher-risk buildings; and the Higher-Risk Buildings (Descriptions and Supplementary Provisions) Regulations 2023, in relation to the specific exclusion of certain types of military premises.

I hope that this is a relatively straightforward SI, although I will be guided by Opposition Members. It seeks to do what I think we all want in this House: to make sure that regulations are fit for purpose as a result of all the changes and challenges that we have seen in recent years. I hope this is another step forward in that. I commend it to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lee Rowley]

I thank Members for all the very constructive comments and questions. Let me try to answer them in turn. The hon. Members for Weaver Vale, for Hackney South and Shoreditch, and for Liverpool, Wavertree, raised important points about cost. It is absolutely right that we need the greatest transparency, and the minimum impact on residents. The approach will be imperfect whenever any system has so many actors within it. If the Government and the Building Safety Regulator make the approach very clear, and have processes that check these things, that is probably as much as we can do right now, but there is obviously more that should be done.

We have a combination of clarity around the issue, the Building Safety Regulator’s focus on it, and the Government’s clear statements about it, as well as a review and loop mechanism—plus there is all the work on the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill. Many Members here contributed to Second Reading on Monday. The Bill seeks to create transparency about service charges in general, irrespective of whether the building is a high-rise. We hope that all those things will form a package. The best way to keep costs down is to ensure that the system has transparency at its core, and that people have the ability to check and challenge in a practical way.

Secondly, on the distribution of costs, I acknowledge the point the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree made about the importance of minimising the impact on leaseholders. That is vital. Leaseholders have faced substantial challenges over the past six years, particularly those in buildings affected by cladding, those who are going through remediation and those who are still waiting for remediation. We have to try to minimise the costs. At the same time, I cannot exempt from costs unless we can find a specific fund at a time when the Government are still overspending by £130 billion—that is for a separate discussion at another time, however.

There will be an add-on in terms of cost; the job is to reduce it to the minimum and provide transparency, and then to do the work the hon. Member for Weaver Vale kindly referred to on the other costs residents are facing—increased insurance premiums, probable costs of commissions on top of insurance, and so on—and try to drive those costs down. A huge amount of work is being done to drive down the costs of insurance, which I have to say is very frustrating on a personal level. We have made some progress on commissions; on insurance, we have not made the progress I wanted, but we are working very closely with the insurance industry to do that and I hope to have more information soon. While the distribution of costs is probably not where Opposition Members want it to be, I hope I can reassure them that we are working across the piece to drive down costs in aggregate.

Thirdly, how will the appeals work? There will be an appeals process that allows reference to an independent panel through the Building Safety Regulator; if that is not satisfactory, cases can go to the first-tier tribunal for a decision. Having met with many leaseholders while dealing with the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill over the last couple of weeks, I recognise that tribunals are not an end in themselves. The processes are long, involved and complicated, and people have lives to lead, but ultimately we have to find the form of redress that works, and I hope to achieve that by providing greater transparency and easier processes through that Bill, and more information where it is necessary.

If the package does not work, I want to hear from colleagues about such examples. I meet the Building Safety Regulator—the chair, the chief executive and everyone involved—monthly to discuss issues of mutual interest. I have already said to them that getting these costs down and getting the guidance around this to a place where it is reasonable and proportionate are hugely important. I know we will have examples where management companies try it on or there is no transparency; there will be cases where things are not as we want them to be. We need to identify the problems, work through them and see whether we can make changes to make the process better.

[Mike Amesbury]

The Minister talks about the Building Safety Regulator, but we are talking about some 12,000 that are in scope. Is he confident that the regulator and associated teams have enough resources to meet these quite ambitious timescales? We are all keen to move things on collectively, but can he give us some assurance?

[Lee Rowley]

I work closely with the Building Safety Regulator. Its first job is to make sure that the rough number of buildings we are expecting to register have done so. For the past couple of months I have received data weekly, and slightly less frequently before that. The numbers are in the ballpark of how many we expected to register, so the first test has been passed. Now, it is a case of, over six years, working through the buildings, making sure that data is collected and used in a satisfactory way, and helping owners to make sure they are managing in a way that works. A substantial sum is going into the Building Safety Regulator, and from having worked closely with it, I think the indications so far—things may change—are that it is moving in the right direction.

To pick up a couple of other points, the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch highlighted the very important point about disabilities and making sure that appropriate consideration is given to that issue. That is vital and it is a core part of our approach, but it is separate from the regulations before us, which are about a record of buildings, not of people who live in them. We have already consulted and we will bring forward separate measures on PEEPs—personal emergency evacuation plans.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

I thank the Minister for clarifying that. Does he have a rough timescale? I am asking not for a precise date, but for a range of dates when we might see that, because it is critical. I have a constituent who is particularly concerned about that issue.

[Lee Rowley]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right to highlight that. When I speak to a number of the cladding groups, it is one of the areas that is, quite rightly, at the centre of the points that they raise. I am afraid that I will do that rather annoying thing and say that I do not have a date, but we hope it to be very soon.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

Spring?

[Lee Rowley]

I hope that would be the case. The Secretary of State sees this as a priority; we are in deep conversations with the Home Office on it, and I hope that we will bring it forward as soon as we can.

I will conclude with a couple of additional points. On the point about review, I reiterate that I am keen to receive any information or data from colleagues where they see problems or, indeed, good behaviour, so that we can feed that into the BSR. I will be happy to do that as soon as these things go in, because at that point we will be able to start to gather the body of data that indicates whether it is working in the way that we hoped or needs to be looked at.

As for the final few questions, data sharing is a difficult area to get right. All data that is collected will be shareable with the Building Safety Regulator—otherwise, there is no point in having the regulator in the first place. Almost all data will be shared with the fire and rescue services—otherwise, again, there is no point in having it. There is a much more delicate interaction between the entity and the leaseholders. Obviously, the entity will need to collect the data, but a series of provisions in the guidance will try to manage that. Again, we will need to review that as we go through to ensure that it works.

On the point about older buildings, it is absolutely right to point out that whether we like it or not, ideally or not, there will be a paucity of data in certain places. Some data will need to be replaced—otherwise, there is no point having the regulations and collecting it in the first place if the questions of the fire and rescue service cannot be answered. People must be able to answer them—otherwise, it is not advancing the cause of safety.

The usual reasonable principle test is in all the regulations; therefore, the objective is to ensure that the data is available for when it is necessary. However, if people have gone through a reasonable process of trying to get it and they cannot get it until x day or they need to wait until a point in a cycle, or whatever, that will be for the usual processes of tribunals to judge. However, a reasonable test is brought into it, which is a proportionate way of saying, “You need to do this, but it may take a little bit of time”, or, “We need to work that through”.

My right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings had a question about schedule 2. For obvious reasons, it will not be the case that residents moving in who have not made some kind of contractual arrangement to purchase the property will have access to all the data—otherwise, basically anybody would have access to it. However, they would be given that information at the point of a contract being signed, naturally. We would then hope and expect—I know that my right hon. Friend will appreciate this, as someone from a similar ideological view to my own—that it will be difficult to put rules around the level of data available in advance of that, but I expect that, through the sales process, responsible entities will want to provide a sufficient level of data to assure those seeking to purchase or take an interest in a property to be able to do so. If the data is not available or obstructions are found, it may signal an indication of the responsibility of those managing the building.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

The Minister is making some helpful points. It is clear that he is very much on top of this matter, so I echo the comments made earlier. It has been helpful to meet him to discuss issues at times.

On the issue of information, a lot of the properties in my constituency are tenanted—as I said earlier, the leaseholder is often living overseas or elsewhere—so we are reliant on the whole tenancy arrangement for information to be shared with the tenant. As far as I am aware—the Minister may want to have an exchange of letters about this—there is no absolute requirement on landlords to provide that document. Landlords must now provide 13 different documents to a tenant. The Minister has made general comments about fire safety and so on, but I do not recall anything specific about that document. Is there any further change in the rules or guidance for private landlords—they are the ones who would be in scope—that needs to happen as a result? It seems that there may be a small gap that is important and significant. What the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings said was helpful.

[Lee Rowley]

I am happy to write to the hon. Lady to be absolutely certain that I have understood the point. We will get officials to write to her with that information. My understanding is that the combination of clear requirements; a clear, responsible entity that needs to respond to those requirements, whoever it is in the hierarchy and however complex the hierarchy is; and forms of redress that ultimately fall back to the Building Safety Regulator to say, “No, that is not acceptable” should cover everything. However, if it does not, we can work that through in an exchange of letters.

I think that covers what colleagues have said, and I thank them for their constructive comments. I look forward to making progress on this issue. Adding additional regulation is always challenging, and there are different views on that on different sides of the House, but even for someone like me, who tends to favour relatively low regulation, it is a reasonable and proportionate thing to do. We now need to ensure that it is right, and I am keen to get feedback from colleagues to ensure that that is the case in the months ahead.

Question put and agreed to.

Planning: Local Energy Efficiency Standards

Lee Rowley Excerpts

Wednesday 13th December 2023 Written Statements

[The Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety (Lee Rowley)]

My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State (Baroness Penn) has made the following written ministerial statement:



As a Government, we continue to make progress towards the net zero goal set out in legislation in 2019, including by improving the energy efficiency of homes and moving to cleaner technologies and sources of power within the homes and building sector.



There has been a long-standing debate within planning about both the best method and body to set energy efficiency and environmental standards. For a number of years, the plans of some local authorities have sought to go further than national standards in terms of such efficiency for new-build properties. Equally, there is a legitimate consideration for the Government to want to strike the best balance between making progress on improving the efficiency and performance of homes while still wanting to ensure housing is built in sufficient numbers to support those who wish to own or rent their own home.



In 2015, in reference to an un-commenced provision in the Deregulation Act 2015 which amended the Planning and Energy Act 2008, a written ministerial statement—HC Deb, 25 March 2015, vol 584, cols 131-138WS—stated that until that amendment was commenced, local plan policies exceeding minimum energy efficiency standards should not go beyond level 4 of the Code for Sustainable Homes. Since then, the introduction of the 2021 Part L uplift to the Building Regulations set national minimum energy efficiency standards that are higher than those referenced in the 2015 WMS rendering it effectively moot. A further change to energy efficiency building regulations is planned for 2025 meaning that homes built to that standard will be net zero ready and should need no significant work to ensure that they have zero carbon emissions as the grid continues to decarbonise. Compared to varied local standards, these nationally applied standards provide much-needed clarity and consistency for businesses, large and small, to invest and prepare to build net-zero ready homes.



The improvement in standards already in force, alongside the ones which are due in 2025, demonstrates the Government’s commitment to ensuring new properties have a much lower impact on the environment in the future. In this context, the Government do not expect plan-makers to set local energy efficiency standards for buildings that go beyond current or planned buildings regulations. The proliferation of multiple, local standards by local authority area can add further costs to building new homes by adding complexity and undermining economies of scale. Any planning policies that propose local energy efficiency standards for buildings that go beyond current or planned buildings regulation should be rejected at examination if they do not have a well-reasoned and robustly costed rationale that ensures:

That development remains viable, and the impact on housing supply and affordability is considered in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework;

The additional requirement is expressed as a percentage uplift of a dwelling’s target emissions rate, calculated using a specified version of the standard assessment procedure;

Where plan policies go beyond current or planned building regulations, those polices should be applied flexibly to decisions on planning applications and appeals where the applicant can demonstrate that meeting the higher standards is not technically feasible, in relation to the availability of appropriate local energy infrastructure—for example adequate existing and planned grid connections—and access to adequate supply chains;



To be sound, local plans must be consistent with national policy—enabling the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in the National Planning Policy Framework and other statements of national planning policy, including this one;



The Secretary of State will closely monitor the implementation of the policy set out in this WMS and has intervention powers provided by Parliament that may be used in respect to policies in plans or development management decisions, in line with the relevant criteria for such intervention powers;



The above supersedes the section of the 25 March 2015 WMS entitled “Housing standards: streamlining the system”, sub-paragraph “Plan making” in respect of energy efficiency requirements and standards only. Planning practice guidance will also be updated to reflect this statement.

[HCWS123]

Housing Availability: Ilfracombe

Lee Rowley Excerpts

Monday 11th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety (Lee Rowley)]

Let me start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) for the opportunity to debate these important issues, as it is vital that Members have the opportunity to discuss them. Making sure that there are viable, aspirant and successful towns all across the country is a hugely important part of our job, one that motivated me to come to this place on behalf of North East Derbyshire. I know that it clearly motivates my hon. Friend to do the same for North Devon. Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities officials were pleased to hold a recent roundtable in Ilfracombe, which she mentioned. Officials and agencies had a productive discussion about some of the opportunities and challenges that she has rightly highlighted, and some of the points about support. I also recognise her for the important work that she does with the Devon Housing Commission, on which, as she said, she serves, and I am looking forward to seeing the results of that work. I want to spend 30 seconds just championing her in general, as she is one of the most diligent Members of this House. She is so utterly engaged in the issues that are important to her constituents and it is so important that that is the case. I know that North Devon residents will be very grateful for all the work she does.

Obviously, housing is vital for the Government’s long-term plan for economic recovery. In July, the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) set out a long-term plan for housing, to usher in a new era of regeneration and housing delivery all across England. We are talking not only about more houses, but houses in the right place that are absolutely seeking to service and support local demand.

We are on track to achieve our manifesto commitment to deliver more than 1 million homes over the course of this Parliament. Since April 2010, more than 2 million homes have been delivered, and four of the highest annual periods for housing supply in the past 30 years have come in the past half decade or so. It is absolutely vital that we build more houses, but we need to build them in the right place and in a way that responds to local demand, as my hon. Friend has said. We will continue to work with Homes England. I have already met my hon. Friend a number of times to discuss the matter, but my offer to work in partnership with her remains, so we can see what we can do for North Devon in the long term, as well as constituencies around the country.

My hon. Friend is right to highlight the importance of aspiration, which we know can be a challenge in some of our smaller towns. We must ensure that we are not just giving people things, as important as they are—a lot of the discussion about levelling up has been about things. We need to give them the tools to go and change their lives for the better. If we can inculcate aspiration into our kids as they go through school and into our communities as people build their lives and businesses, and if we can ensure aspiration is at the core of everything we do, that is a fundamentally Conservative prospectus upon which to make our communities even stronger. It is also the most successful way to make our communities stronger in the long term.

The new funding announced in the autumn statement through the levelling-up partnerships, the further investment zones, the new investment opportunity fund and other funding for transformative projects across the country will make a real difference in areas where funding has been agreed and where it will come in the months ahead. Ilfracombe has benefited from Government funding to support increased housing and infrastructure, including the brownfield land release fund, which will provide 15 self-build and custom-build properties in Bicclescombe, Devon. In addition, £6.5 million from the housing infrastructure fund has been made available for the Ilfracombe southern extension. However, I take my hon. Friend’s point that much more needs to be done and I am happy to work with her on that.

We remain committed to creating a housing system that works, including increasing first-time buyers in every single region across the country. We are operating a range of schemes, including first homes, shared ownership and mortgage guarantee schemes, all of which aim to increase the supply of low-deposit mortgages and the availability of new housing, and to stimulate economic growth.

We know that first-time buyers can often struggle to afford to buy a home in the areas where they live and work. I have spoken to my hon. Friend previously about those challenges in North Devon. Key workers can find themselves unable to live in the communities they serve, as my hon. Friend highlighted. Initiatives such as the first homes scheme, while not perfect, allow local exemptions to be set under key worker criteria. I hope that communities up and down the land that are facing those challenges are able to use those schemes, but we recognise that there is always a longer conversation to have on that issue.

My hon. Friend is right to raise the basic point of fairness. This week, we will be talking about a number of other issues in this place; tomorrow, we will be talking about those who come to our shores illegally. She is right to highlight the views of her constituents that there has to be basic fairness with people coming to this country, so that we can make the case that the work we do on levelling up works for the long term. I hope we can make progress on that specific and broader point tomorrow.

My hon. Friend and I also spoke recently about community land trusts as a way to support housing supply that meets the needs of the local community. The community-led approach to house building involves community-based groups taking responsibility for driving forward local house building schemes. That support, and the close involvement of local communities, enables the securing of planning permission and the delivery of housing on sites. I hope that that is a possibility in North Devon in the future.

We have already spoken several times since I was appointed as Housing Minister a few weeks ago about the importance of getting clarity for my hon. Friend and other colleagues in Devon, Cornwall and elsewhere regarding short-term lets. In a debate in Westminster Hall a number of weeks ago, we talked about the importance of tourism for areas such as North Devon, and the importance of clarity about what is happening with regard to short-term lets. While I am still unable to give a specific timetable, my hon. Friend and her colleagues in the south-west have impressed upon us all in Government the urgency of providing clarity about both the register and what we intend to do with the planning use class. We will try to move forward on that as quickly as we can, and give clarity to communities such as North Devon as soon as possible.

I thank my hon. Friend for prompting this important debate and giving us the opportunity, even in a small way, to discuss Ilfracombe—both the opportunities and the challenges—and to recognise that there is much more conversation to be had outside this Chamber with regard to its future. Places such as Ilfracombe, just like places such as North East Derbyshire, which I have the privilege to represent, have hugely bright futures if we can give communities the tools to get on and make those communities as aspirational as they can be. We need to ensure that Government support works for the long term, and continue the very good conversations that my hon. Friend has started and on which she is at the forefront, to ensure that she is championing places such as North Devon for the long term.

Question put and agreed to.

Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill

Lee Rowley Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 11th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

May I begin by echoing the comments of those on both Front Benches in supporting all those who, for many years, have been working on leasehold reform? As we have seen from this debate, this cuts across the Benches, because it is a classic example of the reality that we see in our constituency surgeries day in and day out. I also pay tribute to the all-party parliamentary group on leasehold and commonhold reform for all the work it has done. I know that I have benefited from reading much of its material while trying—often in vain, frankly—to help constituents with freehold manager companies.

As we head into the festive period, I know that this would be the best possible Christmas present we could give to so many people who are struggling with the impact of what I call “leasemin”—the day-to-day admin or work they have to do to manage the fact that they have a leasehold property. In my constituency, like that of so many other hon. Members, thousands of people are in that position. It is not just about the costs of renewing a lease; it is the day-to-day problems that come from being in a leasehold block.

Given that it is the festive period and we all want to give people good news at this time of the year, I have to tell the Minister that it does feel a bit as though my constituents have seen Santa’s sleigh flying past with all the lovely presents, but all they are getting is a lump of coal because so many of them are in flats that will not be affected by this legislation. May I urge him to think about what more we could do to protect those people in flats, because there has been an explosion of this, particularly in cities and in areas such as mine?

Sadly, I am told this evening that Condé Nast has described part of my constituency as one of the new hot places. I always dread it when I see that because it means a lot more building, a lot more pressure on house prices and very little support for my local residents. So many of the people who move into those properties will be moving into leasehold properties and face these problems; they will face that basic nightmare of thinking they own their home when they really do not. It is theirs but only under certain conditions; it is not their castle to do what they want with. Those conditions can be about whether they can have pets or a loft extension. During the pandemic, many residents could not access the energy-saving proposals because that had to be done at leaseholder level and their leasehold managers were not doing anything about it.

There have been good freehold companies as well as bad ones; there is variation. But the fundamental challenge at the heart of this legislation, and why I asked the Secretary of State about it earlier, is that commonhold is the only way we can genuinely give voice to people. It is a voice that deals with the “leasemin” problem—much more so than having the most efficient freehold management companies possible. So I want to stress to the Minister that there is still time to put commonhold as the default tenure into this legislation, and give people the Christmas present they really deserve—the most proper protection against being exploited that we could offer.

Let me give the Minister some context for why I feel so strongly about this. The number of flats in my community has risen 13% in the last eight years while the numbers of other types of properties have remained broadly static. Frankly, every time Kirstie and Phil turn up in Walthamstow, we see another tower block go up, and those tower blocks are leasehold; more than half the property transactions last year were for leasehold properties.

This is a massive issue now for most local residents, fundamentally changing the nature of my community both in terms of the people who can afford to live in those properties and the impact this is having on the cost of living. It is no surprise to me that I have the ninth highest level of child poverty when I look at people who have bought what they think are great starter homes but then find themselves saddled with charges and costs that they cannot afford in order to try to stay in the area. The question for me is whether this legislation will address the challenges that they are facing, and I do not see that happening, However, I do want to acknowledge there are many things in the legislation that we all welcome, such as the shift to peppercorn rents and ending escalating ground rents, which for some of my constituents has been a massive challenge, and the idea of longer default leases.

Many people in my constituency are part of a group of leaseholders because they live in properties that were built en masse. That is not a recent phenomenon. Indeed, I want to talk about the Warner estate in Walthamstow. They are beautiful properties, and I declare that I used to live in one myself. They were built from the 1930s to house the workers for our local industrial estates in the Lea valley. They were purpose-built flats built in two-storey terraced rows with a double front door and a split back garden. On a practical basis, that means that both residents in the properties have to want to buy the freehold, which creates a barrier for people and a challenge for so many of my constituents.

More fundamentally, the frustration I see is that, although thousands of residents live in these properties, every single one of them has a different interaction with the freehold manager. That is partly because in 2002 a situation happened which this legislation would not deal with. The Warner estate was sold and split up between Circle 33, Final Brief and various other commercial freeholders. The Minister might say that the residents would have had the right of first refusal, but because the leasehold companies were sold within parent companies and child companies of each other, residents did not get a look in. Therefore, local residents who organised themselves into Warner estate residents groups have had to deal with different companies even though they live side-by-side, complicating their ability to exercise what few rights they have under existing legislation. That means that there are different prices for renewal of the same length of leases, and different prices for quotes for having an extension and the paperwork needed for that. The most egregious difference is in the insurance they were all charged. In fact, many years ago they were asked to take on terrorism insurance for living in these properties. When I queried that with the freehold company, I was sent back the details of somebody who had been accused of terrorism and lived in Walthamstow; therefore, those who wanted to continue to live in the Warner properties as leaseholders needed to pay that additional premium. That is all perfectly legal and at the moment in this legislation there is no way to challenge that when a freeholder “takes the mickey”—I was trying to find a polite parliamentary term.

I guess my leaseholders on the Warner estate are at least grateful that they do not have a lease for Bridge Court, which is under—I am sure the Minister will know the name of this management company— Y&Y Management.

[The Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety (Lee Rowley)]

indicated assent.

[Stella Creasy]

As the Minister is nodding, he will know the amount of casework that small set of properties, only 24 flats, has generated for me over the years. To give some examples of the charges residents have faced, one was given an extra £1,500 bill and another was due to be evicted for being spuriously charged £5,000 by that company. It is not legally possible for those residents to withhold those payments and not lose their properties, so they had to try to find the money to pay, even though it was patently obvious that that egregious company was levying the charges as punishment for their having dared to exercise their rights. The only option open to them was to go to court.

Again, this legislation offers nothing to help support people in such a situation. It offers nothing to help support people when their freehold manager shifts the leasehold around to avoid them having the right to manage or even the right to buy their own freehold out. This company decided the private communal gardens could be turned into a public car park, opening up the entire estate and letting in huge problems with antisocial behaviour, all because it thought it could make a fast buck in the London area with a car park.

Y&Y then transferred the ownership of the building to Triplerose, a management company owned by Israel Moskovitz, who is part of Y&Y Management. Just the other week a resident came to me to point out that they had an onerous ground rent clause, which means that their ground rent has to be reviewed every five years against the retail price rate. That was not in the original lease but was added in. The owners of that property tried to sell the flat, and they asked whether they could vary that condition, because it was stopping them being able to sell it. Triplerose responded, demanding an immediate non-refundable payment to provide a quote—just a quote—for what it would cost to vary that condition. It then came back with a quote of £700 for an admin fee, £1,400 for legal fees and £8,000 for the premium.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety (Lee Rowley)]

It is a pleasure to wind up the debate after so many useful, thoughtful and detailed contributions. In that spirit, I want to spend a little time going through some of those details. Before doing so, I wish to thank, as so many others have, all the campaigners and all those who have spent so much time working in this area for so many years.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean), the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson), the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova), my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken), the hon. Member for City of Chester (Samantha Dixon), my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker), the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne), and all those who intervened for the helpful comments they provided.

I welcome the general and broad support for the actions that are being taken in the Bill. I also welcome the consensus in the House on the need for reform, which I know, as was highlighted several times, has been some time coming. I hope right hon. and hon. Members will recognise that this is a complicated and intricate area, which is observable not least from the many examples given in the debate. We now have in front of us a good proposition for making progress.

Our focus in the Bill is on being able to make practical progress—to make the Bill as practically useful as it can be—and then to have the greatest impact that it can have. Some, including hon. Members tonight, have said that it does not go far enough; others have said that we should return to first principles and seek to build the whole system again. I am sure that those hon. Members will make their case in Committee if they are part of it, and on Report and in subsequent stages. The Government seek to have a proposition on which can be built; one that is practical, achievable and makes a difference. The art of politics is about being able to make progress, and we think that the Bill will make a significant difference to people’s lives.

Let me turn to some comments made in the debate. I pay tribute to the long-standing work of the Father of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West. He raised a number of points, which we will go through in more detail in Committee, but I want to highlight his point on building safety with regard to sub-11 metre properties. A number of Members made similar comments. We have a process in place, so if colleagues have concerns about fire remediation issues in sub-11 metre properties, they should ensure that they get the appropriate fire assessments needed in all buildings. If substantial works are needed to those properties, they can be raised with the Department, which has committed at this Dispatch Box and has executed commitments to look into those issues in more detail.

I pay tribute to the work of the Select Committee, chaired by my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Sheffield South East. I particularly enjoy our interactions on this issue because it gives me, like him, the opportunity repeatedly to say as a constituency MP how outraged I am about Coppen Estates’s consistent failure to respond. That is a hallmark of a small cohort of actors in this area, which consistently and flagrantly ignore reality and their ability to make a difference to our residents’ lives. Coppen Estates is a good example of such actors, but there are many others.

[Mr Betts]

I thank the Minister for responding to that point. Will he look at strengthening the Bill to stop companies like Coppen Estates avoiding the legislation? Strengthening the legislation is fine, and so is changing the way that enfranchisement fees are calculated so that people get a better deal, but in the end, the freeholder has to respond, which Coppen Estates refuses to do. My constituents in the Flockton estate in Sheffield have tried and failed for years to get a response. How will the legislation be strengthened to ensure that such companies respond?

[Lee Rowley]

I am very happy to look at specific issues in Committee. As the Secretary of State highlighted in his opening speech, if there are areas where we can improve the Bill, we will be happy to do so. I cannot make promises, but we are happy to look at them. The hon. Gentleman’s constituents in Sheffield, my constituents in Dronfield and constituents all across the country have similar issues to those with Coppen Estates, so I hope we will be able to make progress.

The hon. Gentleman, the hon. Member for Battersea and others rightly talked about leaseholders not knowing what they are paying for. A few weeks ago, I had the privilege of taking part in a two-hour discussion with one of the better estate managers about an issue in my constituency in Hunloke Grove. They were willing to go into detail, talk about the issues, work through and be transparent on their fees in a way that so many other managing agents are not. The importance of that came home to me in that discussion.

My hon. Friend the Member for Redditch should rightly take all the credit for where we are today. I am surfing on all her work over many months to get the Bill ready. She deserves a huge amount of credit for that. She was an exceptional Housing Minister and has made some extremely constructive comments today, which we will look at along with the similar comments from my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk. I can confirm that our intention is that there will be sufficient time to be clear on ground rents. As my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch rightly said, it is so important that we secure a property-owning democracy for the next generation.

I thank the right hon. Member for East Ham for making a series of important points, which I am happy to look at. The Government are happy to see whether they are possible. He made a specific point about asbestos, which we will take away and review with the detail it deserves. I look forward to the visit to Barrier Point, which I wanted to make following his correspondence. It is important that, on building safety, we look at not just the overall macro picture but individual circumstances, to see whether we can learn anything.

I am also grateful to the right hon. Member for giving me this opportunity to make the point about insurance from the Dispatch Box. I am as keen as him to see progress on insurance. I have met representatives of the insurance sector on a very regular basis in the year that I have been in post. I hope that they will hold to their intentions. They have told us that they will launch the scheme, and we are keen to see it. The Secretary of State’s further meeting this week will, I hope, enable progress.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford made extremely important points on estate management. He has continually articulated the challenges on a regular basis, and has been a champion on this matter. He rightly speaks of the outrages he has seen in his constituency. It is important that we respond to that as best we can.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East for highlighting a number of the important changes that are coming. He is right that our objective is to squeeze out the bad practice in the sector. There are honourable people out there and there are honourable ways in which it is done, but where bad practice occurs it gives the entire sector a bad name. We will legislate and regulate to remove it in a proportionate way.

My hon. Friend also highlighted an example of a property that has not yet made progress on remediation, and similar examples were given by the hon. Members for Brentford and Isleworth and for Walthamstow and my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster. We can see significant progress. We have only recently produced a new detailed set of data covering all the funds that are open on building safety. I hope hon. Members will see the progress that has been made, but we recognise that there is more to do. The hon. Member for Walthamstow is absolutely right that there are a number of names that pop up repeatedly—for example Y&Y Management and E&M. There are many others and they should be on notice that they need to change their practices, because they are not acceptable.

[Matthew Pennycook]

The Minister touched on building safety. In the briefing notes on the Bill that accompanied the King’s Speech, under the heading “Improving leaseholders’ consumer rights”, reference was made to:

“Building on the legislation brought forward by the Building Safety Act 2022”.

Is it the Government’s intention to incorporate building safety measures in the Bill?

[Lee Rowley]

We are looking at what may be possible. We recognise that, while the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities has brought forward a very solid prospectus, tweaks can always be made. We see real momentum in this area. I know that that is not good enough for buildings that have not yet had their remediation or for leaseholders who are hugely frustrated by the inability or unwillingness of freeholders to make progress, but we have made significant changes and steps forward in the last year or so, and we are committed to doing more in the coming months.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Shropshire for meeting me earlier to talk about specific points about assets. We will look at those points and come back to her.

I can confirm to my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills that we intend to tackle ground rents. I am grateful to her for highlighting exceptions in leasehold houses. We intend that to be a very narrow element. She sought an example. One example I can give is that of National Trust land where freeholds cannot be sold and a small number of leasehold homes may therefore be required.

The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby talked about his disappointment with, I believe, the consultation on ground rents. We must consult on that because we must ensure that we are listening and that we take a decision based on the broad range of evidence in front of us, to ensure that it is legally sound when the decision is made. He encourages me to speak to the Law Commission. I can tell him that I have spoken to the Law Commission probably more regularly than any other external organisation outside the Department in the past three or four weeks.

The hon. Members for Walthamstow, for Battersea and for Brentford and Isleworth are seeking to push a narrative—if I may say that very gently to them, with the best of intentions—that this is not a significant intervention with regard to flats. I gently encourage them to continue to engage with the Bill. They will see long and cheap extensions, easier enfranchisement, service charge transparency, easier redress, lease extensions, standard forms, annual reports and many, many other significant measures that will have salience for those living in flats.

Before I conclude, I would like to thank the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) for his constructive comments. I look forward to meeting him in Committee to talk about them more. While I may disappoint the right hon. Member for East Ham, I would like to turn to some of the comments made from the Opposition Front Bench.

The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), despite acknowledging that the Government have brought forward important legislation, despite confirming that Labour would not be opposing it and despite advancing the most enthusiastic compliment I have ever heard her give a Conservative—that the Secretary of State has reached the lofty heights of being a “functional cog”; heavy praise indeed!—showed that, as ever, she deals in rhetoric rather than reality, and in politics rather than policy. She called the Bill “empty”. This is a Bill with 65 clauses, eight schedules and 133 pages, and there are 67 pages of explanatory notes. Given its comprehensive reform of enfranchisement and extensions, its comprehensive reform of redress, and its comprehensive reform of service charges, estate management and valuation, that is a funny definition of “empty”.

[Bob Blackman]

I asked the Minister to answer this question in summing up the debate. Will he undertake to include the outcome of the consultations that are currently taking place, particularly that on ground rents, in the amendments that the Government table in Committee?

[Lee Rowley]

That is our intention, yes.

We have had a good debate today, which I hope—indeed, I know—will start the passage of this important Bill into law and lead to a better system for everyone in the long term. This is an outcome that is fundamentally Conservative because, fundamentally, the Bill is about empowering people, about levelling the playing field where it has been distorted, about reining in those who are trying to rent-seek for no purpose at the expense of those who just want to get on with living their lives, and about giving people the security of home ownership—proper home ownership, for the long term—so that they can build their lives and build their futures. I hope that all Members will join the Government in supporting the Bill tonight, and I look forward to further constructive conversations during its future stages.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill (Programme)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill:

Committal

(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.

Proceedings in Public Bill Committee

(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 1 February 2024.

(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.

Consideration and Third Reading

(4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.

(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.

(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.

Other proceedings

(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Scott Mann.)

Question agreed to.

Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill (Money)

King’s recommendation signified.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of:

(1) any expenditure incurred under or by virtue of the Act by the Secretary of State, and

(2) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.—(Scott Mann.)

Question agreed to.

Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill (Ways and Means)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill, it is expedient to authorise the charging of fees under or by virtue of the Act.—(Scott Mann.)

Question agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lee Rowley Excerpts

Monday 4th December 2023 Commons Chamber

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

10. What plans he has for leasehold reform.

[The Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety (Lee Rowley)]

On 27 November the Government introduced the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill, which delivers the Government’s manifesto commitments on leasehold reform and makes long-term necessary changes to improve home ownership for millions of leaseholders across England and Wales.

[Alex Cunningham]

In January, the Secretary of State told The Sunday Times:

“I don’t believe leasehold is fair in any way. It is an outdated feudal system that needs to go. And we need to move to a better system and to liberate people from it.”

But the Government’s Bill does not sort it, nor does it free my constituents from their feudal masters. Why?

[Lee Rowley]

As the hon. Gentleman will know if he has read the Bill that was introduced last week, a substantial amount of progress is proposed under it: a substantial number of leaseholders will be much better off and experience a substantial improvement to their lives as a result of the changes that this Government are proposing.

[Gordon Henderson]

A large number of freehold homeowners in my constituency pay charges to property management companies for maintenance services that are not always carried out. The management companies rarely respond to complaints from residents, who often do not have the money to seek legal advice with a view to taking court action. Will my hon. Friend confirm that the new Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill will grant freehold homeowners the right to transparency about how their money is spent, to challenge companies when the contracted services are not provided and, where necessary, to have the contract removed from that company?

[Lee Rowley]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight that issue, and I know that many of us will have heard of similar experiences in our constituencies. That is another example—I return to the point made by the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham)—of reform under this Bill that will significantly improve the lives of leaseholders for the long term.

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

As you will no doubt be aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Government’s Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill, designed to ban the sale of new leasehold houses, does not actually contain any provisions to ban the sale of new leasehold houses, because the Department apparently did not have time to draft them before publication. If and when the Government rectify their mistake and add the necessary provisions, will they incorporate measures to reinvigorate commonhold by making it accessible and available to both prospective homebuyers and existing leaseholders? If not, why not?

[Lee Rowley]

As has been outlined, we intend to bring forward further changes to the Bill during the process, as Opposition Members know is normal, because they have sat in the same Committees that we have. We are not proposing to change leasehold to commonhold under the Bill, but that remains part of our long-term approach and we would like to see further reforms as soon as we are able to.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

One outsider and apparently one or two Opposition Members misinterpreted what I understood the Secretary of State to be saying in January. Can the Minister confirm that the opportunities for enfranchisement will take away many of the problems that residential leaseholders now suffer and, in effect, that will get them to commonhold? I will just add that if we had waited to transfer all leaseholds to commonhold, we would not have the Bill now and 6 million leaseholders would have been betrayed.

[Lee Rowley]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. We all want to see those in leasehold in a much improved situation. We are making huge steps forward with this Bill and we look forward to continuing and augmenting that reform in due course.

[Sarah Dyke (Somerton and Frome) (LD)]

7. What assessment he has made of the implications for his policies of council budget shortfalls.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety (Lee Rowley)]

The Government have in place a framework, developed in collaboration with the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, that supports the deployment of renewable energy technologies. That is balanced by national planning policy, which is clear that land assets such as farmland must also be protected.

[Greg Smith]

On current usage, 2,000 acres of solar panels are required to power around 50,000 homes, whereas a small modular reactor requires just two football pitches and powers 1 million homes. Does my hon. Friend agree that solar is a highly inefficient land use, and can he confirm that the provision to protect land used in food production remains in the new national planning policy framework?

[Lee Rowley]

I know that my hon. Friend has a long-standing interest in this issue. We will be publishing more on the NPPF shortly, but he is absolutely right that we need a variety of different energy sources that can support the UK’s future energy needs.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

As the Minister knows, there is a disparity between the contracts for difference scheme for the mainland and what exists for Northern Ireland. I have made overtures to the Minister responsible to see whether we can get that changed, but that has not happened yet. Will the Minister use his influence to make sure that we in Northern Ireland are treated equally with everybody else in the United Kingdom?

[Lee Rowley]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. He might like to write to me, or I am happy to speak to him separately in order to understand the issue, and either I or my colleagues in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero will be happy to respond.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

14. What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the Government’s levelling-up policies at reducing regional inequalities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)]

T2. Over the summer, the Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley) published a non-binding code of practice for cladding remediation works, following intensive discussions with him, and also my highlighting the devasting case of St Francis Tower. Will he update the House on how in practice that non-binding code of practice is working? Has it led to improved behaviour and been a step forward, and has he considered further my view that perhaps that code of practice needs to be legally binding?

[The Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety (Lee Rowley)]

My hon. Friend was a driving force behind that code of practice, and we are monitoring it actively. Anecdotally I am seeing fewer issues, although there are still some. I would be happy to receive from him and other Members of the House any information or evidence that suggests there is still a problem.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

T4. The cost to councils of delivering services will exceed their core funding by £2 billion this year. Newcastle expects a funding gap of £56 million, following £369 million of Conservative cuts to funding and years of Conservative economic failure. Can my constituents rely on council services under a Conservative Government?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lee Rowley]

I think we responded to a written question on this matter just a few months ago, but I am happy to meet the hon. Lady to talk about it in more detail, if there still is a problem. I am not aware of one at the moment.

[Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)]

Horsham is suffering severe water stress and is subject to water neutrality. Does the Minister agree that mitigations should be thorough, evidenced and monitored?

[Lee Rowley]

I absolutely agree. Water neutrality is impacting on small parts of the country, but it needs to be dealt with seriously and proportionately by statutory consultees, and then with a can-do attitude from councils where appropriate.

[Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)]

T10.   Does the Minister agree that young people leaving care after their 18th birthday should get more help to get their first home? Will he back my campaign that I am running with Barnado’s and Plymouth care leavers for a deposit scheme for care leavers and a rent guarantee scheme, because every single care leaver leaving local authority care deserves a good, decent and safe first home?

[Lee Rowley]

I know the hon. Gentleman has done a significant amount of work on this matter within Plymouth, and I know that my colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions are doing a significant amount of work, too, and I would be happy to meet him to talk more about the matter.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

Sadly, a second homeless person died over the weekend. The number of rough sleepers is increasing, and the temperatures are falling. Will my hon. Friend take immediate action to ensure that rough sleepers are provided with a decent place to sleep, particularly during this cold weather?

Housing in Tourist Destinations

Lee Rowley Excerpts

Tuesday 28th November 2023 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Housing (Lee Rowley)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) on securing this important debate. I know that colleagues in Cornwall and Devon have returned to this issue time and time again and that there are very strong views about it. As clear advocates of their constituencies, they have highlighted the issues they see in their individual areas. I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay for all the work he has done with colleagues, both today and more broadly, to highlight this issue.

The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) talked about the role of Housing Minister being sponsored by a certain company, and I liked the role so much that I came back a second time. I recall some of the discussions I had when I was first in this position, and the issue before us was one of the bigger ones raised by colleagues who are in the room today. In my first debate back in this role, it is a pleasure to be able to talk about it and to understand the continuing challenges faced in not just the south-west but other parts of the country. Colleagues have seen first hand, and have heard from constituents about, the benefits of tourism but also the challenges that come with it. I pay tribute to all the work they do.

As my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Simon Jupp) rightly highlighted, there is a balance to strike. First, in responding on behalf of the Government, I acknowledge, as all hon. Members have done, the benefits of tourism. It is an economic, social and cultural asset, and it is hugely valuable for parts of the country such as not only Cornwall and Devon, but mine in North East Derbyshire. It employs 1.7 million people and contributed nearly £74 billion, pre-pandemic. Up to one in five jobs in Cornwall is supported by it, and that is one of the reasons why we need to get this right—so that people who work in the sector can live. My hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) highlighted the staffing challenges.

To enjoy the tourism offer, people need somewhere to stay and to rest. This is not a new issue, but it has come into sharper relief in the past 10 or 15 years, particularly with the rise in digital platforms and the sharing economy. That change has accentuated the offer in many parts of the country, but it has also created significant challenges, which were outlined.

Tourism has brought benefits, but we know and have heard about the challenges and the impact on communities, including the growing number of lets, which limits the availability of housing for people permanently resident in the community, and the reduction in the permanent population. That translates into problems for families and neighbourhoods, and issues with public services. Those are problems of popularity, of desire, and of people wanting to experience and enjoy the benefits of such areas, but as colleagues have indicated, they are still problems, on which it is reasonable and proportionate to take action.

As I am sure hon. Members will appreciate, the same issues do not apply in all parts of the country. We have to be cautious in how we approach this issue, to ensure that we deal appropriately with the different challenges and opportunities found in the south-west and in the city of Chester, which the hon. Member for City of Chester (Samantha Dixon) highlighted. Areas such as mine might not face the same kind of tourist issues as other areas, despite it being even prettier than Cornwall, Devon, and Strangford—a point that I will take up separately with the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).

Hon. Friends and colleagues have asked me to talk about our work in Government, but it has been described already, so I will not go through it in extraordinary detail. As has been outlined, my colleagues in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport have consulted on a registration scheme that we intend to introduce under the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, which received Royal Assent a short time ago. That is a tool to provide local authorities with stronger evidence. It was consulted on earlier this year, with more than 2,500 responses received. We are part of the way through analysing those receipts, and the Government will respond as soon as we can. I assure the House that I have heard what Members say about the importance of moving quickly, and I will pass that back to colleagues in my Department, and in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.

[Tim Farron]

Will the Minister give way?

[Lee Rowley]

I am usually delighted to give way, but given the limited time, I will demur in this instance. On the consultation on use-class changes and short-term lets, I have heard clearly that there is a desire for clarity and speed. We are moving as quickly as we can. The hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Ms Qaisar) highlighted the Scottish example, which I will refrain from commenting on, apart from to emphasise that it took four years and a delay to get to that point. I do not anticipate ours being a four-year journey, but we need to ensure that we do this correctly, and work through the issue in the depth that it deserves. I assure hon. Members that we will try to do that in the time we have available. Given that I have made up a little time, I am happy to hear the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron).

[Tim Farron]

The Minister is a good man. During my enjoyable time on the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill Committee, his predecessor guaranteed to me that the change in planning use class for short-term lets would come in this April. Can he deliver on that promise?

[Lee Rowley]

I am happy to talk about that separately. I will try to move that as quickly as I can, recognising that we have had a large number of consultation responses, which we are working through as quickly as we can.

In the few minutes I have left, I turn to some of the points made. My hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay, who secured the debate, raised a concern about the implications for parish councils. I am grateful to him for doing so, both in the debate and a short time before. I spoke with officials in advance of the debate, and we are unsure about some of the challenges that are experienced. I am very happy to receive direct information on that from the parish council in Mevagissey—I tried to pronounce that; I hope that gives me some credit. If the parish council gets a power of competence, as it can, it should be able to spend the money that it talks about in a more flexible way. I am happy to speak to my hon. Friend about that, if that is helpful.

My hon. Friend the Member for East Devon rightly talked about balance, and the importance of the broader tourist ecosystem, as did my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon. The hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) talked about a taskforce, but I think we have clarity about the challenges, at least as far as I can see from this initial debate with colleagues who are impacted by tourism. The need now is to move at the greatest pace to hopefully bring in measures that we have said we are looking at.

My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory) highlighted some of the more extreme instances of these issues; in particular, she mentioned the single child in Portloe, who is now in school. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Strangford for the Northern Ireland perspective, as ever. This is day 11 in this job, and I have not yet spoken specifically to colleagues in Northern Ireland, but I look forward to doing so through our inter-ministerial groups.

My hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) talked about the importance of building housing, and the opportunities to build it in the right place. That is absolutely at the core of what we are trying to do in the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities: to build more housing, but in the right place. Where there are opportunities in rural areas as well as urban ones, we should take them.

Finally, given the comments from the hon. Members for Ellesmere Port and Neston, and for City of Chester, let me gently ensure some balance in this debate, in the short time that I have left. I understand that we have challenges around housing, but taking a broader perspective, home ownership has started to rise again in this country for the first time in many years. It is important for that to be recognised and anticipated. Three of the years with the greatest house building in this country have been in the last five years. We also have the largest number of first-time buyers in many years. There is always more to do—I would not want to suggest otherwise, particularly in this debate, when there are specific, localised issues that need to be dealt with—but that needs to be placed in the wider context of the progress that is being made.

I conclude by saying again how grateful I am for the opportunity to debate this important issue, and I recognise the challenge in individual areas. We have to get the balance right, and recognise that there are many different circumstances, as well as areas that are impacted and those that are not. The impact may be felt in differently in different parts of the country. I acknowledge and recognise the points made, the challenge that has been set for us to move as quickly as possible, and the opportunity to make progress on this issue, for the benefit of all the areas represented in the debate.

Building Safety Update

Lee Rowley Excerpts

Thursday 16th November 2023 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Lee Rowley)]

Today, for the first time, the Government are publishing comprehensive remediation data on the progress made to fix residential buildings over 11 metres with unsafe cladding in England.

The laws passed by this Parliament and the actions taken by this Government since 2021 have systematically broken impasses on thousands of buildings. Through the Building Safety Act 2022, we have delivered the most substantive reforms to building safety in nearly 40 years and leaseholders have been given significant legal protections from unfair remediation bills.

All residential buildings above 11 metres in England now have a pathway to fix unsafe cladding, either through a taxpayer-funded scheme or through a developer-funded scheme.

Following intensive talks with the home-building sector, we have a solution that will see industry take responsibility for fixing fire safety defects. Where developers or building owners are not currently funding cladding remediation, the Government have committed £5.1 billion to ensure that people are safe and feel safe in their homes.

Summary of progress

2023 has seen a step change both in the framework for, and progress of, remediation. Thousands of buildings have been identified and are now making progress on their journey. Significant additional pressure is being applied to those that are yet to begin. Developers are now clearly aware that they must step up to fix buildings that they are responsible for. And, month on month, more and more buildings are completing their remediation and allowing residents to move on with their lives after such a difficult period.

At the end of October 2023, the following progress can be reported:

1,512 buildings have now formally started remediation work (up from 749 at the end of 2022);

Of those, 703 have completed that work (57% above December’s figure of 448);

A further 2,285 buildings are preparing to begin works (up from 853 at the end of 2022). Every month will see further progress, supported by one of five initiatives that are underway:

the ACM Cladding Remediation fund, which has been open since 2018 and covers buildings with the most dangerous Grenfell-type cladding;

the Building Safety Fund, first opened in 2020 for buildings over 18 metres;

the Cladding Safety Scheme, which was fully opened in July for buildings between 11 and 18 metres and is also open to new applications for 18 metre+ buildings outside of London;

the more than 1,000 buildings for which developers have now assumed direct responsibility for remediating all life-critical fire safety defects, and;

the work underway by social housing providers to remediate buildings in their portfolios which require remediation.

Progress made by developers to fix buildings they are responsible for

The Government have always been clear that the primary responsibility for resolving any building safety issues lies with those responsible for the creation of the issues. Prior to 2023, only a small number of buildings were being remediated by the developer who originally constructed them. This has changed significantly since the spring, when 51 developers agreed to take full responsibility for all life-critical fire safety defects on at least 1,342 buildings, at an estimated cost of £2.7 billion.

Since the summer, the Government have required developers to submit regular updates on the progress on remediation of these buildings. For the first time, we are publishing information on how each developer is performing. Of the 1,342 buildings in scope, so far works have been completed on 262 and are underway on a further 211, and clear plans are in place to remediate a further 506. There are currently 363 buildings without a finalised remediation plan.

We are clear with developers that they need to work quickly and that leaseholders in each property need to have clear information about when further progress is likely to be made. I expect all developers to make significant progress on assessing their buildings by the next data release, confirming start dates for works, pushing forward with works, and updating residents and leaseholders. Should developers not move at a reasonable speed, we will take the necessary action. We also call on the freeholders of these buildings to co-operate with developers, by providing access for assessments and making sure the works can start as quickly as possible.

Government-supported schemes to remediate

Where no responsible developer can be identified, the Government now has three wide-ranging schemes open to address fire risks in buildings which have unsafe cladding. To prioritise those buildings with the most dangerous Grenfell-type cladding, the ACM Cladding Remediation Fund was opened in 2018. This was followed with the Building Safety Fund, which covers all relevant properties over 18 metres, in 2020. The Cladding Safety Scheme was opened in full in July 2023, after an eight-month pilot, to cover eligible buildings between 11 and 18 metres, as well as new applications for 18 metre+ buildings outside London.

Six years into the ACM scheme, almost all buildings with ACM cladding (96%) have now been fixed or are in the process of being fixed. There are 22 buildings yet to start ACM remediation. Two buildings are vacant and therefore do not pose a risk to resident safety. 15 buildings have start forecasts and four buildings without a start forecast have had local authority enforcement action taken against them. The remaining building has a remediation plan in place. We continue to work to reduce the remaining number through extensive work with the local enforcement authorities and direct contact with the responsible entities.

Progress within the Building Safety Fund is also gaining momentum, with almost half of eligible buildings either having started or completed works. The proportion of in-scope buildings with works completed has more than doubled since the beginning of the year, rising from 96 (8%) to 199 (20%). A further 27% of buildings now have works underway (up from 20% in December). We continue to work with partners in the Greater London Authority and Homes England with urgency to increase the number of buildings going through their remediation journey.

The full opening of the Cladding Safety Scheme in July 2023 marked the culmination of our extensive work to ensure that buildings between 11 and 18 metres have a pathway towards remediation. The pilot opened in November last year, and over 325 buildings from the pilot phase are progressing through the application system. The scheme opened in full in July this year; as of October 2023, there are almost 1,000 buildings at various stages of the application process. 48 buildings have now been issued or have signed grant funding agreements with Homes England, which is delivering the CSS on our behalf. Our focus now will be to extend support and raise its profile over the coming months for those buildings which have not yet got involved. Lease- holders and residents who believe their building should be in the scheme can inform Homes England, which will investigate each building, and pull them into the programme where appropriate.

Department officials are working with the regulator for social housing to assess progress of remediation in the social sector. I welcome their publication of the findings of a Fire Safety Remediation Survey that over 1,500 registered providers were asked to complete. Providers reported having a combined total of 15,405 11 metre+ buildings, of which 1,608 are known to require cladding remediation work. Remediation works are complete in 7% of these buildings; works have started in 25%; plans for works are in place in 37%; 32% of buildings still lack clear plans, and this must change. All providers should expect to provide quarterly updates on progress of remediation, and I have written to 14 larger local authorities who did not provide a return in response. The next survey will be commissioned shortly and future departmental publications will include data on a provider-by-provider basis. I expect all providers of social housing to identify, assess and remediate their buildings at pace, and we are working with the regulators to ensure that this happens.

Enforcement

Finally, building owners who are continuing to stall should know they are running out of time if they are trying to avoid being forced to act. Leaseholders and residents who have concerns about remediation progress for their building should report this to their local authority or fire and rescue service. Local authorities are enforcing against freeholders failing to remediate high-rise buildings at sufficient pace and, as an example, Newham Council has recently successfully prosecuted a freeholder for failure to comply with enforcement action under the Housing Act 2004. For the most egregious of cases, the recovery strategy unit is pursuing companies and individuals through any means necessary, and currently has 19 legal cases underway against freeholders.

The publication of broader remediation data today is another step in the journey to ensure further transparency on the achievements to date, the work underway and, crucially, where more focus is needed. We are determined to both confirm progress where it is happening and shine a light on those parts of the sector where further attention is needed.

Ensuring buildings are safe requires a significant, involved and prolonged effort. The pace of remediation has, happily, stepped up significantly over recent months but we recognise there remains much more to do. We remain committed to making further progress in the months ahead.

[HCWS41]

Working Arrangements: Local Government

Lee Rowley Excerpts

Thursday 26th October 2023 Written Statements

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

I would like to update the House on the Government’s position regarding the small number of councils currently experimenting, or proposing to experiment, with the use of four-day working weeks within local government.

Local councils play a pivotal role in the delivery of core public services and in the regeneration of their communities. The sector has a deserved reputation for effectiveness in much of its delivery and in having improved its efficiency over the last decade. Local government’s continued ability to find new, more effective and efficient ways to discharge their responsibilities and to deliver high-quality services for their residents has been a vital part of our mission to repair the nation’s finances since 2010.

The reputation of local government, however, is being impacted by the ideological experimentation of a small number of councils that are attempting to suggest that the removal of 20% of their workforce’s productive capacity can, somehow, result in increased overall corporate output. Asking the taxpayer to shoulder the full-time expense for part-time hours by deleting 20% of the working week is not compatible with a council’s requirement to demonstrate value for money.

In normal circumstances, the Government of course respect the right of councils to make their own decisions on key issues. There are also times, however, when the Government deem it proportionate to step in to ensure that residents’ value for money is protected. The issue of the four-day working week is one of those times.

As a result, today I am publishing clear guidance setting out the Department’s expectations for local authorities in England that are considering adopting a four-day working week or that have done so already. This guidance makes it clear that the Government do not support a four-day working week and do not expect councils to adopt this arrangement. This guidance will support councils in discharging their duties and to ensure that they maintain their work to continuously improve and demonstrate best value.

The Government are being extremely clear that they do not support the adoption of the four-day working week within the local government sector. Local authorities that are considering adopting it should not do so. Those that have adopted it already should end this practice immediately. Those councils who continue to disregard this guidance are now on notice that the Government will take necessary steps in the coming months ahead to ensure that this practice is ended within local government.

A copy of the four-day working week guidance will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

[HCWS1099]

Non-Domestic Rating Bill

Lee Rowley Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 25th October 2023 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments 2 and 3.

[Lee Rowley]

It is a pleasure to return this Bill to this place after its positive reception, both here initially and in the other place more recently. Reforming business rates was a manifesto commitment, and having concluded our review of rates, the Bill seeks to deliver a fairer and more effective business rates system.

The amendments that the Government invite the House to support today are minor and do not change the policy intentions of the Bill, which we have debated before in this place. Two amendments deal with the penalties regime for the new duty on ratepayers in clause 13—they are designed to ensure that the penalties system is fairer—and the third is a minor and technical amendment that removes some obsolete wording as a result of another part of the Bill. I will deal with each amendment briefly.

Lords amendment 1 concerns the civil penalties that the Valuation Office Agency can apply if ratepayers do not provide information under the duty. These include an additional daily penalty of £60, which may only be applied if a ratepayer persistently fails to meet their obligations following an initial penalty notice. The Government have listened to the views of the experts in the other place and agreed to create an additional safeguard for ratepayers by capping the financial value of penalties that can be imposed under this provision. Daily penalties will be capped at £1,800, equivalent to 30 days’ worth of penalties. This change will also bring the valuation duty in line with the separate duty to provide His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs with a taxpayer reference number, for which a cap on penalties is already in place.

Lords amendment 2 concerns the penalty for the criminal offence of knowingly or recklessly making a false statement, an offence that is subject to higher penalties than simply failing to comply. The Bill prescribes that for a higher penalty to be applied, the VOA must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the ratepayer has made the false statement knowingly or recklessly. Having reflected, we have recognised that we need to apply the same burden of proof to the procedure on appeal. The amendment therefore provides that the valuation tribunal must remit a penalty unless it is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the ratepayer has knowingly or recklessly made a false statement. This provides additional protection for ratepayers.

Finally, Lords amendment 3 is a minor and technical change to the Local Government Finance Act 1988, as a consequential effect of the provisions in the Bill concerning business rates multipliers. This is simply a drafting correction to improve the clarity of the statute book, and the Government do not foresee any practical effect.

The Government invite the House to agree to three minor amendments that were unanimously supported in the other place. Lords amendments 1 and 2 refine and improve the compliance framework for the new information duty, and Lords amendment 3 is a minor consequential change to improve the clarity of the statute book. I commend them to the House.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I call the Opposition Front Bencher.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lee Rowley]

I will not seek to detain the House for any more than a few seconds. I express my gratitude to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray), for his constructive comments and his willingness to support the amendments, as well as for resisting the temptation to go over again some of the things we have talked about in previous iterations of this Bill.

I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous), who has been involved since the beginning. He has done the House a significant service in both reviewing the Bill and offering his comments during its passage. As he says, this is a significant change and one that I think everybody accepts is a big leap forward, particularly on the revaluation frequency moving from five to three years. While we are on the subject of late 1990s game shows, although in his view we have not yet finished this matter—I accept that we never finish—we are grateful for his “Mastermind” qualities in looking at this Bill over the past few months.

Lords amendment 1 agreed to.

Lords amendments 2 and 3 agreed to.

Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

Ordered,

That the Order of 3 July 2023 (Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill Programme) be varied as follows:

(1) Paragraphs (4) and (5) of the Order shall be omitted.

(2) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.

(3) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Julie Marson.)