Housing and Planning Bill

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd May 2016 Commons Chamber

Consideration of Lords amendments

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is engaged by Lords amendments 37 to 58, 91, 184 and 185. If the House agrees to any of these amendments, I will cause an appropriate entry to be made in the Journal.

I also remind the House that certain of the motions relating to the Lords amendments are certified as relating exclusively to England, or to England and Wales, as set out on the selection paper. If the House divides on any certified motion, a double majority will be required for the motion to be passed.

Clause 2

What is a starter home?

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Brandon Lewis)]

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

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendments (a) to (c) in lieu of Lords amendment 1.

Lords amendment 9, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 10, and Government motion to disagree.

Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendments 9 and 10.

Lords amendment 37, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 184, and amendment (a) thereto.

Lords amendment 47, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 54, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 55, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 57, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 58, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendments 2 to 8, 11 to 36, 38 to 46, 48 to 53, 56, 59 to 96, 182, 183, 185 to 188, 190, 191 and 195 to 239.

[Brandon Lewis]

I am glad to be back at the Dispatch Box and returning to the Housing and Planning Bill this afternoon. We are now in the final month of the first year of this Parliament: a Parliament that has seen a majority Conservative Government returned to the House—a Government with a clear mandate to deliver the largest programme of house building for a generation.

It is immensely fitting to be here this afternoon having come from Mr Speaker’s own garden, where construction people have been showing the importance of house building across our country and of bringing in more skills to deliver the homes that we are determined to build. We want to place home ownership within the reach of thousands of people who never dreamed that they could achieve it, and we want to ensure that, in doing so, we make the best use of our social housing so that it continues to support those most in need.

The Bill before us today is a slightly different beast from the one we passed to the other place earlier this year. Today we will discuss rather more than the five or six amendments we traditionally see come from the other House. The vast majority of these I will ask this House to accept.

Debates in both Houses have been productive and resulted in improvements to the Bill. I want to be clear from the start. I have heard many, mainly on the Opposition Benches, say that we should have waited before debating the Bill. That would have meant the Government’s having to sit idly by, ticking forms and double checking that what the public elected us to do was what they actually wanted. We are debating the Bill early in this Parliament so that it can take effect as soon as possible and we can get those new homes built for those who aspire to have them.

--- Later in debate ---

The House proceeded to a Division.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I must remind the House that the motion relates exclusively to England. A double majority is therefore required.

--- Later in debate ---

The House proceeded to a Division.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I remind the House that the motion relates exclusively to England. A double majority is therefore required.

--- Later in debate ---

Lords amendments 55, 57 and 58 disagreed to.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I must now put the Questions necessary to dispose of the remaining Lords amendments in the group. First, under the Standing Order, I must put the Question on the Lords amendments that relate exclusively to England.

Lords amendments 2 to 8, 11 to 36, 38 to 46, 48 to 53, 56, 59, 60, 88 to 96, 197 to 199 and 215 to 239 agreed to, with Commons financial privilege waived in respect of Lords amendments 38 to 46, 48 to 53, 56 and 91.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I must now put the Question on the remaining Lords amendments that have not been certified.

Lords amendments 61 to 87, 182, 183, 185 to 188, 190, 191, 195, 196 and 200 to 214 agreed to, with Commons financial privilege waived in respect of Lords amendment 185.

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

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Lords amendments 92 and 93 were moved by Lord Young of Cookham with the understanding of the Government. Amendment 92 deals, it says, with tenants—in fact, it is leaseholders—and amendment 93 deals with leaseholders in a commonhold agreement. Am I right in saying that they give powers to Government to propose to Parliament statutory instruments, which we can consider separately?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

As a man who has been here longer than most, you will know that that is not for the Chair to interpret.

After Clause 128

Neighbourhood right of appeal

[Brandon Lewis]

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 97.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to consider the following:

Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 97.

Lords amendment 100.

Lords amendment 108, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 109, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 110, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 98, 99 and 101 to 107.

Lords amendment 111, and Government amendment (a) thereto.

Lords amendments 112 to 181, 189, 192 to 194 and 240 to 282.

[Brandon Lewis]

I will try to be brief, but I want to go through a few key areas in this group of amendments. If we are to build more houses, we need to make it as simple as we can to do so, while supporting the key principles of local determination and empowerment. If we are to build new homes so that families and communities can grow, those communities need to be happy that they have a say and a voice. The more red tape there is and the more spanners there are in the system, the more the system grinds to a creaking halt, and we end up in the mess that we are trying to fix—the mess that we inherited.

As we have made clear, decisions on planning applications must be made in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. A neighbourhood plan brought into legal force is part of the development plan and must be the starting point for authorities’ decisions on applications. I want to be very clear that neighbourhood plans have weight in law. I am exceptionally proud of neighbourhood planning, as, I expect, is every Member of this House who has seen their community take the lead in deciding the future development of their area—deciding where new homes and businesses should go, what they should look like and what local infrastructure is needed.

Putting planning power in the hands of local people involves the whole community, from plan drafting to referendum stages. Local support for house building in such areas has doubled, and opposition has halved. I have spoken to people who are excited about the prospect of new homes, schools for their children as they grow older and the opportunity to have their say about how their towns and villages should grow.

Neighbourhood plans are clear evidence of our belief that decisions about community life should be taken by those communities. We can and should trust communities to make those decisions. We do only half our job if neighbourhood plans are there, but in name only. If people have exercised their right to be heard about where new homes should go, and if a group has put time and effort into doing so, I believe it is only right that the local planning authority should take notice, although I am not inclined to support Lords amendment 97 as the best way to achieve that. I am sympathetic to it—of course I am—but even in a limited form, a neighbourhood right of appeal could affect housing supply and reduce confidence in the system.

Neighbourhood plans have weight in law, and I want to make sure that we keep the spirit of the amendment and maintain that confidence. There is no stronger position for a community to hold than to have an up-to-date neighbourhood plan in place. I believe that communities should have the reassurance that, after they have taken the time and effort to get involved, there will be additional safeguards in place to ensure that they are listened to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brandon Lewis]

I will make a little progress, but I will take more interventions later.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Members want to get in, but they will not get in if they keep intervening. They have to choose which they want to do, and I will choose the ones who are not intervening.

[Brandon Lewis]

Lords amendment 110 seeks to remove an automatic right to connect to the public sewer for surface water, unless a sustainable drainage system forms part of a development and is constructed in accordance with non-statutory technical standards and the planning permission. However, the proposed new clause, as currently drafted, is unnecessary and unworkable. First, it makes the right to connect conditional on complying with the terms of a planning permission that may not actually provide for such a drainage system. That might be because it is not viable or because there are on-site constraints.

Secondly, the new clause presumes that a process exists that determines whether or not a development is permitted to connect to the public sewer, where there is none. Thirdly, making the right to connect conditional on planning permission leaves open a number of issues, including what happens when connections are needed and where there is currently no requirement for planning permission to be obtained at all. That might include situations where water sewerage companies are exercising their statutory obligations to drain an area effectively.

Finally, the new clause, which would increase red tape and barriers to development, has no transitional arrangements and industry, especially smaller house builders, will struggle to respond without time to prepare, leading to delays in house building.