Housing Delivery
Matthew Pennycook Excerpts(3 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
Today, I set out further steps the Government are taking to realise the full potential of greater Cambridge as part of our plans to supercharge growth in the Oxford- Cambridge corridor.
The Oxford-Cambridge region is already home to world-leading universities and globally renowned science and technology firms. It has the potential to become one of the most innovative and economically dynamic areas in the world. However, numerous long-standing barriers to further growth, from inadequate transport connections to a lack of affordable housing, are preventing it from realising its true potential.
The supply-side constraints evident across the Oxford-Cambridge region are particularly acute in greater Cambridge. Its economic growth has been a phenomenal success and the city and its environs are home to the most intensive science and technological cluster in the world, yet Cambridge’s continued position as a world-leading centre of innovation is dependent on tackling infrastructure deficiencies, commercial accessibility and housing affordability.
In October 2024, I appointed Peter Freeman to chair the Cambridge Growth Company—a subsidiary of Homes England. The CGC was tasked with working with local partners to develop and implement an ambitious plan for high-quality sustainable growth in Cambridge and its environs. Its efforts to unlock and accelerate prime development opportunities have already facilitated the delivery of over 9,000 additional homes, a new cancer hospital, and new commercial and laboratory space.
In addition to identifying and enabling near-term development opportunities, the CGC was asked to develop the evidence base to support an infrastructure-first growth plan and a long-term delivery vehicle. Based on the work the CGC has undertaken over the past year, I believe that the nature, scale and complexity of ambitious and high-quality sustainable growth in Cambridge and its environs will require a delivery vehicle with the necessary powers, authority and access to finance. I am therefore announcing today that the Government intend to consult on establishing a centrally led development corporation to deliver nationally significant growth in greater Cambridge.
To support the delivery of new homes, infrastructure, business and laboratory space, and a programme of water-savings measures, the Government are also making available up to £400 million of initial funding. This ambitious funding package will provide the CGC and a future delivery vehicle with the capital needed to unlock and accelerate development on key sites, remove barriers to sustainable growth, and boost housing supply.
In order for the benefits of further growth to be felt by new and existing communities alike, we are committed to an ongoing partnership with local leaders, communities and residents. Their insights, knowledge and direct input will steer the precise form of any delivery vehicle’s ambition. Should a decision be taken to establish a centrally led development corporation, it is our intention that local democratically elected leaders would be invited to join the board. There will be opportunities to formally shape the Government’s proposals as part of the future consultation process.
To demonstrate the Government’s firm commitment to realising the full potential of greater Cambridge in the months and years ahead, I can today also confirm the following:
A new chief executive will be recruited to lead the next phase of the CGC’s ambitious programme.
The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology will provide a £15 million grant for the University of Cambridge’s innovation hub to build a flexible, world-class lab space where life science and technology start-ups can begin their growth journey to becoming global businesses.
The CGC is working with the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough combined authority and other local partners to explore options for mass rapid transit solutions for Cambridge.
The Government have instructed Anglian Water to accelerate planning for the waste water infrastructure upgrades required to accommodate development and growth, both now and for the Cambridge Growth Company’s long-term ambitions for expansion in greater Cambridge. This will report to Government by early 2026.
Work continues with local partners and the advisory Water Scarcity Group to deliver our water efficiency programme. The first phase, backed by £5 million of investment, is already under way and will roll out water retrofits in social housing and public buildings across the city.
Investment announced today will go towards expanding delivery of the water efficiency programme and wider water package to address water scarcity. We will also use Cambridge as a testbed to trial innovative water interventions, including working with experts to switch on the water recycling system at the Eddington site in north-west Cambridge next year.
We will continue to update Parliament on the work of the Government in greater Cambridge, and the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor.
[HCWS990]
Greater Cambridge: Sustainable Growth
Matthew Pennycook Excerpts(3 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
Today, I set out further steps the Government are taking to realise the full potential of Greater Cambridge as part of our plans to supercharge growth in the Oxford- Cambridge corridor.
The Oxford-Cambridge region is already home to world-leading universities and globally renowned science and technology firms. It has the potential to become one of the most innovative and economically dynamic areas in the world. However, numerous long-standing barriers to further growth, from inadequate transport connections to a lack of affordable housing, are preventing it from realising its true potential.
The supply-side constraints evident across the Oxford-Cambridge region are particularly acute in Greater Cambridge. Its economic growth has been a phenomenal success and the city and its environs are home to the most intensive science and technological cluster in the world. Yet, Cambridge’s continued position as a world-leading centre of innovation is dependent on tackling infrastructure deficiencies, commercial accessibility and housing affordability.
In October 2024, I appointed Peter Freeman to chair the Cambridge Growth Company (CGC)—a subsidiary of Homes England. The CGC was tasked with working with local partners to develop and implement an ambitious plan for high-quality sustainable growth in Cambridge and its environs. Its efforts to unlock and accelerate prime development opportunities have already facilitated the delivery of over 9,000 additional homes, a new cancer hospital, and new commercial and laboratory space.
In addition to identifying and enabling near-term development opportunities, the CGC was asked to develop the evidence base to support an infrastructure-first growth plan and a long-term delivery vehicle. Based on the work the CGC has undertaken over the past year, I believe that the nature, scale and complexity of ambitious and high- quality sustainable growth in Cambridge and its environs will require a delivery vehicle with the necessary powers, authority and access to finance.
I am therefore announcing today that the Government intend to consult on establishing a centrally-led development corporation to deliver nationally significant growth in Greater Cambridge.
To support the delivery of new homes, infrastructure, business and laboratory space, and a programme of water-saving measures, the Government are also making available up to £400 million of initial funding. This ambitious funding package will provide the CGC and a future delivery vehicle with the capital needed to unlock and accelerate key sites, remove barriers to sustainable growth, and boost housing supply.
In order that the benefits of further growth will be felt by new and existing communities alike, we are committed to an ongoing partnership with local leaders, communities and residents. Their insights, knowledge and direct input will steer the precise form of any delivery vehicle’s ambition. Should a decision be taken to establish a centrally-led development corporation, it is our intention that local democratically elected leaders would be invited to join the board. There will be opportunities to formally shape the Government proposals as part of the future consultation process.
To demonstrate the Government’s firm commitment to realising the full potential of Greater Cambridge in the months and years ahead, I can today also confirm the following:
A new chief executive will be recruited to lead the next phase of the CGC’s ambitious programme.
The Department of Science, Innovation and Technology will provide a £15 million grant for the University of Cambridge’s innovation hub to build a flexible, world-class lab space where life science and technology start-ups can begin their growth journey to becoming global businesses.
The CGC is working with the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough combined authority and other local partners to explore options for mass rapid transit solutions for Cambridge.
The Government have instructed Anglian Water to accelerate planning for wastewater infrastructure upgrades required to accommodate development and growth both now and for the Cambridge Growth Company’s long-term ambitions for expansion in Greater Cambridge. This will report to Government by early 2026.
Work continues with local partners and the advisory water scarcity group to deliver our water efficiency programme. The first phase, backed by £5 million of investment, is already under way and will roll out water retrofits in social housing and public buildings across the city.
Investment announced today will go towards expanding delivery of the water efficiency programme and wider water package to address water scarcity. We will also use Cambridge as a testbed to trial innovative water interventions, including working with experts to switch on the water recycling system at the Eddington site in north-west Cambridge next year.
We will continue to update Parliament on the work of the Government in Greater Cambridge, and the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor.
[HCWS990]
Renters’ Rights Bill
Matthew Pennycook Excerpts(4 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in their amendments 19B, 19C and 19D.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
With this it will be convenient to consider the Government motion to agree with the Lords in their amendments 39B and 39C.
Matthew Pennycook
Today is a momentous day, because, subject to agreement from this House, the Renters’ Rights Bill will have completed all its stages and will therefore shortly become law. This House last legislated to fundamentally alter the relationship between landlords and tenants in 1988—I was just six years old. In the decades since, England’s private rented sector has changed beyond all recognition. It now houses not just the young and the mobile, but many older people and families with children, for whom greater security and certainty is essential to a flourishing life.
The need to overhaul the regulation of the private rented sector and, in so doing, level decisively the playing field for landlords and tenants is pressing. That is why we introduced the Bill within months of taking office. We promised that we would succeed where the previous Conservative Government had failed by legislating to transform the experience of private renting. I am delighted that we are now within touching distance of seeing the Bill become law. Before I turn to the final amendments agreed to in the other place, I want to put on the record once again my profound thanks to Baroness Taylor for so ably guiding through its House of Lords stages.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
I, too, welcome the Bill becoming law. Personally, I wish that it also regulated rent levels, but my question is: how quickly will it become law to protect people? While this Bill has been winding its way through Parliament over the last year, many have faced the appalling situation of no-fault eviction. Many have lost their properties as a result, whereas they would have been protected had the Bill become law more quickly. Can the Minister give me some idea—so that I can give some comfort to my constituents who are facing no-fault eviction—of how quickly they will get protection, and will there be any retrospective element to it?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that point. We want to provide both renters and landlords with certainty about how the new system will be implemented. I will say a bit more on that in the course of my remarks.
Matthew Pennycook
I am going to make a bit more progress.
As I made clear when we considered Lords amendments to the Bill on 8 September, although the Government were not prepared to accept amendments that would undermine the core principles of the Bill, we were more than willing to make sensible changes in response to the legitimate concerns that have been raised. The changes we are proposing today are firmly within the spirt of that commitment. I am delighted that we were able to reach agreement with those on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench and Lord Young of Cookham, and I thank all the noble Lords involved for their willingness to work collaboratively to strengthen the Bill.
Let me briefly set out the purpose and effect of the amendments in question, beginning with those that relate to shared owners. Lords amendments 19B, 19C and 19D exempt shared owners from the 12-month “no re-let” period in respect of new mandatory possession ground 1A, which allows a landlord to evict a tenant because they intend to sell their property. The exemption is subject to meeting set criteria, to ensure that shared owners have made a genuine attempt to sell their property. The amendments in question also include a delegated power to remove the exemption in the future—for example, once the building safety programme has been completed.
Jim Shannon
I welcome what the Minister has proposed. More and more of these issues have come to my attention in my constituency. Tenants then have to find alternative and affordable accommodation that is close to their work and close to their children’s education. I know this legislation applies to England and Wales only—I understand that. But the Minister is a good Minister, and he always shares information on the legislation that is put forward with the regional assemblies—in my case, the Northern Ireland Assembly. Will he do me and this House the favour of sharing the legislation with the Northern Ireland Assembly to ensure that the good things in the Bill can become good things for us in Northern Ireland as well?
Matthew Pennycook
The Northern Ireland Assembly can access this legislation online, but I will certainly continue to have conversations with Ministers in all the devolved Administrations about what lessons can be learned from what we have done with this Bill, and about what they can take from it.
I once again commend Lord Young of Cookham for championing the interests of shared owners affected by the building safety crisis, and I thank him for tabling his three amendments in lieu. As I made clear when we considered Lords amendments last month, the Government recognise the plight of shared owners living in buildings that require remediation. Many are facing unaffordable costs, often with no viable exit route other than a distress sale. We also appreciate that it is often harder to secure a purchaser for a shared ownership property, and that the sales of shared ownership flats are more likely to fall through due to the additional constraints involved. As such, we have always accepted that the 12 month no re-let period would have placed many shared owners in an extremely challenging position.
The reason why the Government did not feel able to accept Lord Young’s original Lords amendment 19 was that it could undermine protections for the small subset of tenants who happened to rent a sub-let home from a shared owner. I am therefore pleased to report to the House that the amendments in lieu deliver the core aims of that original amendment, while also ensuring that three key safeguards are in place to protect tenants.
First, there is a requirement for the shared owner to have informed the assured subtenant in writing at the outset of the tenancy about the exemption and its possible use. This will ensure tenants are aware of the particular circumstances of the tenancy they are entering into and can make an informed choice about whether they wish to enter into a tenancy agreement with the shared owner in question.
Secondly, shared owners must have informed their provider of their intention to sell before obtaining possession of the property from the tenant. This is an essential first step that all shared owners must take to begin the process of selling their property. I am satisfied that it is a proportionate requirement to evidence that a shared owner is genuinely intending to sell their home.
Thirdly, a valuation must be undertaken on the property by a member of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, or the shared owner must have advertised the property for sale. This can be done at any point before a property is re-let, recognising the need for flexibility in how shared owners will approach a sale.
Taken together with the protections that are already in place as a result of registered providers having to authorise sub-letting requests and having oversight of what rent levels can be charged, I am satisfied that these safeguards will reduce, if not eliminate entirely, the risk that an exemption from the 12-month no re-let period might otherwise have posed.
Lords amendments 39B and 39C will introduce a statutory requirement for annual reporting on the extent to which service family accommodation meets the decent homes standard.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
I thank the Minister for listening to Liberal Democrat colleagues who have made these points, as I have along with my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos), on previous occasions. It is very good that those living in military service accommodation will now have the opportunity to access the decent homes standard. Could the Minister assure me that he will work with colleagues in the Ministry of Defence to ensure that all service families are aware of the decent homes standard—the standard to which they can hold their accommodation providers—so they can live in better homes in my constituency of Bicester and Woodstock and across the country?
Matthew Pennycook
We have ongoing dialogue with colleagues in the Ministry of Defence about this issue, and if the hon. Member will allow me, I will elaborate on how we think these amendments will work in practice and how they interact with what the Ministry of Defence is itself doing. First, however, I once again thank Baroness Grender, Baroness Thornhill and the hon. Members for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) and for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) for their continued support and advocacy for service personnel and their families.
The Government have been clear throughout the passage of the Bill that our armed services personnel and their families must live in safe and decent homes. We remain determined to improve the standard of service family accommodation across the entire defence estate. Alongside the commitment to drive up standards through a record investment of £1.5 billion in service family accommodation over the next five years, the Government will soon publish a defence housing strategy setting out clear renewal standards and further steps to improve the lives of those who serve our country. That standard will be published, so service families will be able to see, judge their accommodation against and interact with this new statutory duty.
As I outlined in the previous debate on Lords amendments, the Government acknowledge the need for greater transparency and accountability to ensure that the commitments we have made are honoured. The amendments in lieu will place the commitments I made to this House last month on a statutory basis. The Government believe that this, alongside the wider steps I have already set out, will help ensure service personnel and their families have the quality of homes that they deserve. The amendments also include a delegated power allowing the housing quality standards that SFA is assessed against to be updated when the current version of the decent homes standard is no longer considered appropriate—for example, when it has been replaced by a new modernised standard. The Liberal Democrats have indicated their support for these amendments, and I hope hon. Members will join me in supporting them.
To conclude, I urge the House to support the amendments put forward by the other place, and I look forward to the remainder of the debate.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Jeremy Corbyn
I will be brief, because this is a time-limited debate. I welcome the Bill, although it has deficiencies, because it does not regulate the amount of rent that is charged. In my constituency, a two-bedroom flat in the private rented sector goes for about £2,000 a month, which is way above what most people can afford. There is a desperate need, in inner-city areas in particular, for rent regulation.
I am pleased that we are ending no-fault eviction, but I absolutely agree with the points made by the hon. Members for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia) and for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) about the extraordinary way in which the Bill has been delayed. Thousands of tenants all over the country have lost a home that the Bill, had it become law, would have prevented them from losing. It is outrageous, the number of people who have become homeless or been forced to move to an even more expensive place. I would be grateful if the Minister could assure us that the no-fault eviction protection will come in immediately when the Bill receives Royal Assent, and that there will be no delay. Some of us are concerned that there has been too long a delay.
There are two quick points that I want to put to the Minister. The Bill requires local authorities to play a much greater role in the private rented sector, but they lack the resources to do that. Is there a guarantee that they will get the resources to ensure proper monitoring of the Bill, and proper support for tenants? In the same vein, the provision of housing advice has disappeared in many parts of the country, so the demand grows on local authorities and organisations such as Citizens Advice for advice for tenants. Many tenants are simply unaware of their rights. If they are unaware of their rights, they can be exploited by unscrupulous landlords—and sadly often are.
Matthew Pennycook
With the leave of the House, I will close this brief but thoughtful debate. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken for their contributions. In the time available, I will respond to as many of the issues raised as I can.
Let me start by saying that I welcome the broad support for the Lords amendments expressed by both shadow Front Benchers. In our view, the amendments are reasonable and proportionate, and respond to legitimate concerns that were raised. They have the safeguards in place that we felt were needed, and we are happy that they are being incorporated into the Bill.
The shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly), raised the issue of supply. We acknowledge that it will take time for the sector, including build-to-rent providers but also landlords of any type, to adjust to this significant change in regulation, but we do not believe that the legislation will have a destabilising effect on the rental market, or a harmful impact on future rental supply, which, it should be noted, we are taking steps to boost, not least by providing more opportunities for investment in a growing build-to-rent sector.
According to the English housing survey, the size of the private rented sector has remained broadly stable since 2013-14. Landlords have been aware of successive Governments’ plans to reform the sector since 2019. It is worth noting that a study from the UK Collaborative Centre for Housing Evidence looked at whether regulation of the PRS over the past 25 years, in the UK and internationally, had affected PRS supply. It concluded that there was no evidence to support the assertion that non-price regulation impacts supply. We will, of course, continue to work with landlords and their representative associations throughout implementation. We are committed to robustly monitoring and evaluating the private rented sector reform programme, and we will, of course, continue to monitor trends across the PRS, including the supply of properties, to understand how the market is responding to our reforms.
The right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) raised the issue of rent controls. He knows that the Government are opposed to introducing rent controls. As I have made clear on many previous occasions, we do not support them, including rent stabilisation measures, because we believe that they could make life more difficult for private renters, both by incentivising landlords to increase rents routinely to a cap, where they might not otherwise have done so, and by pushing many landlords out of the market, thereby making it even harder for renters to find a home that they can afford.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me about implementation. Following Royal Assent, we will allow time for a smooth transition to the new system. We will support tenants, landlords and agents to understand and adjust to the new rules, and ensure the sector has enough time to prepare. As he is aware, the Bill will ensure that the new tenancy system for the private rented sector is introduced in one stage. At that point, the new tenancy system will apply to all private tenancies. Existing tenancies will convert to the new system, and any new tenancy signed off on or after that date will be governed by the new rules.
As I said, I am glad that there is broad support for the Lords amendments relating to shared owners. It is worth saying that the Government will make provision during implementation to ensure that shared owner landlords with an existing tenancy will have an opportunity to provide the information in question to the tenant after the Bill comes into force. We want to take the time to get this right, and find a solution that works for shared owners. We intend to do that using the delegated powers to make transitional provision provided by clause 147.
The Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos), asked about various issues relating to the amendments about service family accommodation. In particular, he asked about investment. As I outlined in my opening speech, the Ministry of Defence has announced an additional £1.5 billion investment in SFA as part of a £7 billion commitment over the next five years to improving and modernising defence housing. That investment will unlock rapid work to tackle the poor state of forces housing, helping to support recruitment, retention and morale. As I mentioned, the defence housing strategy, to be published later this year, will also set out wider plans to improve service family homes.
It is also worth saying that redress is already available to service personnel, who already have a robust system in place for raising a complaint about the standard of their accommodation and receiving remedy or reimbursement. If not resolved, complaints can be escalated to a service complaint, for which there are further powers of reimbursement, charge reduction and policy redress, and ultimately to the employment tribunal in cases of potential discrimination.
Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) about the delays to the Bill. I served on the Bill Committee more than a year ago now, and since then, so many tenants have experienced no-fault evictions. I encourage the Minister to move as quickly as possible to implement the Bill, so that I can tell my constituents how soon their assured shorthold tenancies will become rolling tenancies, and so they can benefit from that as quickly as possible.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank my hon. Friend for that point well made, which I will respond to directly as I wind up. We know that many tenants out there want the great security, rights and protections afforded by the Bill in place as soon as possible.
We promised in our manifesto to overhaul the regulation of our country’s insecure and unjust private rented sector, and this Bill delivers on that commitment. It will empower renters by providing them with greater security, rights and protections, so that they can stay in their homes for longer, build lives in their communities and avoid the risk of homelessness. It will ensure that we can drive up the quality of private rented housing, giving renters access to good-quality and safe homes as a matter of course, and it will allow us to crack down on the minority of unscrupulous landlords who exploit, mistreat or discriminate against renters. The Bill will also provide tangible benefits for responsible landlords who provide high-quality homes and a good service to their tenants, not only improving the reputation of the sector as a whole, but ensuring that good landlords enjoy simpler regulation and clear and expanded possession grounds, so that they can regain their properties quickly when necessary.
As I have argued many times throughout the passage of the Bill, the current system for private renting is broken. In abolishing section 21 no-fault evictions and modernising the regulation of the sector, the Bill will improve the lives of England’s 11 million private renters. It is a transformational piece of legislation and, if you will allow me a brief personal word, Madam Deputy Speaker, I take great pride in having developed and shepherded it through Parliament.
It would be remiss of me to conclude my remarks without thanking a number of people. I would like to express my gratitude to all hon. and right hon. Members and peers in the other place who have engaged with the Bill throughout its passage; the expertise and insight that have been brought to bear in both Houses have strengthened the Bill in a number of important respects. I particularly want to thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), who was and remains one of the Bill’s biggest supporters. She was instrumental in ensuring that it was introduced so quickly after the formation of the Government.
I also thank all the stakeholders who have worked closely with the Government to ensure that the Bill will work for landlord and tenant alike. I cannot possibly credit them all in the time I have available, but I will put on the record my thanks to Generation Rent, Shelter, Crisis, Citizens Advice and the other members of the Renters’ Reform Coalition, as well as the National Residential Landlords Association, the shared ownership network and Propertymark. I will say a final thanks to all the officials in my Department who have devoted so much time and energy to developing and progressing the Bill, particularly the Bill team, Aidan Hilton, James Kennedy, our lawyers and many more, and my private office, specifically Will Gaby and Grace Doody, who provided me with invaluable support throughout the Bill’s passage.
Completing the Bill’s final stage today is obviously only the beginning; once the Bill becomes law, we need to implement its provisions. In doing so, we will balance the need to act quickly, so that tenants can soon benefit from the new rights and protections introduced by the Bill, with ensuring that the sector has sufficient time to adjust and prepare for a significant change in regulation. The Government understand the need for certainty, and we will set out our implementation plans as soon as possible. I very much look forward to working with hon. and right hon. Members, as well as all stakeholders, as we take forward that progress.
Lords amendments 19B, 19C and 19D agreed to.
Lords amendments 39B and 39C agreed to.
National Infrastructure Planning: Data Centres
Matthew Pennycook Excerpts(1 week, 4 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
The Government are committed to ensuring that the planning system effectively facilitates development to meet the needs of a modern economy, including supporting essential digital infrastructure such as data centres.
In December last year, following consultation on how the national planning policy framework could better support economic growth in key sectors, we announced plans to enable certain large-scale projects within knowledge, creative, high technology and data-driven industries to be directed into the nationally significant infrastructure projects consenting regime process.
The Government are now taking an important step towards ensuring that they can do so. I can confirm that applicants wishing to request that projects to develop large laboratories or gigafactories be directed into the NSIP consenting regime process may make a request to the Secretary of State under section 35 of the Planning Act 2008 under the existing industrial process or processes and research and development of products or processes descriptors prescribed in the Infrastructure Planning (Business or Commercial Projects) Regulations 2013.
Furthermore, I have today laid the draft Infrastructure Planning (Business or Commercial Projects) (Amendment) Regulations in Parliament. This draft statutory instrument amends the 2013 regulations to provide that data centres are prescribed projects capable of being directed into the NSIP consenting regime under section 35 of the 2008 Act.
The draft regulations are subject to the affirmative parliamentary procedure. Subject to parliamentary time and approval, we hope to make these regulations and for them to come into force later this year or early next. This will then enable developers of certain proposed data centres on request to opt into the NSIP consenting process, provided the Secretary of State thinks that the project or proposed project is one of national significance and the development meets the other requirements set out in section 35 of the 2008 Act.
To support this change, the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology will prepare a new national policy statement for data centres. This will set out the national policy for this sector and the policy framework for decision making for data centres. It will also include the parameters, thresholds and other relevant factors which may indicate whether such a development is of national significance and capable of meeting the requirements of section 35 of the 2008 Act in order to be directed to proceed through the NSIP consenting regime.
[HCWS966]
New Generation of New Towns
Matthew Pennycook Excerpts(1 week, 6 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
One of the first actions this Government took upon assuming office was to establish an independent expert advisory panel, the New Towns Taskforce, to support the delivery of our manifesto commitment to build a new generation of new towns.
A key purpose of this new generation of new towns is to create new and expanded places and thereby boost economic growth and the supply of new homes—spreading opportunity and supporting strong communities. With that ambition in mind, the taskforce was commissioned to make recommendations to Ministers on the location and delivery of new towns.
The Government made it clear that the taskforce should consider not only large-scale, stand-alone new communities, but also urban extensions and urban regeneration schemes that would work with the grain of development in any given area. We specified that each of the new settlements should contain at least 10,000 homes, but made it clear that we expected a number to be far larger in size. We also commissioned the taskforce with ensuring that any proposals would deliver well-connected, well-designed, sustainable and attractive places where people want to live, with the infrastructure, amenities and services necessary to sustain thriving communities.
On 28 September, the Government published the taskforce’s final report as well as an initial response to it. In its report, the taskforce recommended 12 potential new town locations to the Government. In line with its remit, the taskforce has identified sites across a range of typologies that share core characteristics and reflect the Government’s ambition for new towns to unlock economic growth and deliver housing at scale. Collectively, they have the potential to deliver up to 300,000 homes over the coming decades.
In our initial response, we welcomed all 12 of the recommended locations. Prima facie, each has the clear potential to deliver on the Government’s objectives, with Tempsford, Crews Hill and Leeds South Bank looking particularly promising as sites that might make significant contributions to unlocking economic growth and accelerating housing delivery.
We also made clear that we support the placemaking approach recommended by the taskforce and are encouraged by the aims of its recommended placemaking principles. These include links to high-quality public transport, access to nature, and infrastructure like schools and hospitals, support for business growth and job creation, and the aim to achieve 40% affordable housing, with half of this social rent. The final selection of placemaking principles will be subject to environmental assessment and consultation.
The Government agree with the taskforce that the preference for new town delivery should be through the development corporation model, while recognising the need for flexibility depending on the circumstances of each site. We intend to assess the delivery vehicle options for each place, including consideration of central, mayoral and local development corporations, and the potential for public-private partnerships.
The initial response also states that planning decisions in all 12 recommended locations should consider potential impacts of other developments on the delivery of the new towns, in line with recommendations by the taskforce. We also note wider recommendations by the taskforce on ensuring that the planning system is set up to support new towns and that the legislative framework facilitates the role of development corporations in their delivery, and will carefully consider these recommendations ahead of our fuller response in the spring. In advance of this, we want to reassure local leaders that a consistent and fair approach will be taken to how local housing need targets interact with the future delivery of new towns, to support our overall aim of increasing housing supply, and we will set out more detail in due course.
The Government have commenced a strategic environmental assessment to understand the environmental implications of the development of new towns. This will support final decisions on precisely which locations we take forward as well as the final approach to placemaking and delivery. No final decisions on locations will be made until that SEA concludes, and preferred locations could change as a result of the process.
Ministers and officials will now begin work with local partners to develop detailed proposals and enhance our understanding of how different locations might meet the Government’s expectations of what a future new towns programme can deliver, with all promising sites and reasonable alternatives assessed and considered through the SEA process. Appropriate assessment under the habitats regulations will also be undertaken when required.
The Government will publish draft proposals and a final SEA for consultation early next year, before confirming the locations that will be progressed as new towns later in the spring alongside a full response to the report of the New Towns Taskforce.
In our initial response, we set out the Government’s intended approach to land. This includes the fact that the ‘no-scheme principle’ of compensation for compulsory purchase will apply, so compensation will not include any land value generated by the new town scheme. Any value associated with the potential for planning permission that arises as a result of the relevant new town scheme, including from potential created from the planning framework for the new town scheme, will also be disregarded in accordance with this principle.
Delivering the next generation of new towns will be a cross-Government effort and central to the Government’s agenda, not just in terms of building homes but in order to drive economic growth and spread economic opportunity across the country. It will be a priority across all Government Departments to ensure that new towns are built with the infrastructure and amenities required to create successful new places, with the long-term certainty of funding. We are determined to get spades in the ground on at least three new towns during this Parliament, and the Government are prepared to progress work on a far larger range of locations if it proves possible.
Finally, I would like to thank Sir Michael Lyons, Dame Kate Barker and all members of the New Towns Taskforce for their diligent work over the last year in producing such a considered and comprehensive set of final recommendations.
[HCWS948]
Oral Answers to Questions
Matthew Pennycook Excerpts(1 week, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
My Department does not hold data on the proportion of people who have been granted asylum status living in the private rented sector in England.
John Lamont
It is extraordinary that the Minister does not have that answer. Too many asylum seekers are arriving in our communities far too quickly because the Government have failed on their promise to smash their gangs. People have had enough, and this Labour Government do not seem to have any answers. What actions will the Minister take to support local communities and public services to deal with the growing number of asylum seekers in our communities?
Matthew Pennycook
I am afraid I will take no lectures from the hon. Gentleman, as it was the previous Conservative Government—in which he served as a Minister—who lost control of our borders and presided over the complete breakdown of the asylum system. This Government are restoring order to that system, speeding up decision making and reforming the appeals process to cut the asylum backlog and remove those with no right to be here at a much faster rate than the previous Government. Our country has a proud history of providing sanctuary to those fleeing persecution. Genuine asylum seekers who have been granted refugee or humanitarian protection status should be welcomed. The hon. Gentleman would have said the same some years ago, and it is a sign of just how far his party has fallen that he cannot now bring himself to do so.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
Despite that answer, it is clear that things are getting worse. Our councils are battling with the cost of this Government’s border failures. The 22% rise in small boat arrivals, combined now with Chagossians arriving in rising numbers, throwing themselves at the mercy of our local authorities as they escape Starmer’s sell-out, is stretching council housing budgets to breaking point. The Government have refused to answer my written questions about what financial support they provide to councils housing asylum seekers and refugees who are granted asylum in their areas. Can the Minister tell the House how much of the proposed rise in council tax is for the cost of the Government’s asylum failures, and will he publish the full costs and support in the interests of transparency?
Matthew Pennycook
The hon. Gentleman is conflating two separate issues. Genuine asylum seekers who have been granted refugee status and who can stand on their own two feet and work will rent, in some cases in the private rented sector and in other cases in market housing. Some dispersal accommodation for those seeking asylum will, of course, be in the private rented sector, and that can add pressure to local rental markets. That is why decisions must be made in co-ordination with local authorities and taking into account local housing pressures. More importantly, that is why the reduction in hotel use needs to be proceeded with in an ordered and managed way, not the chaotic way that the Conservatives have been calling for.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
The national planning policy framework sets out that:
“The purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development, including the provision of…supporting infrastructure in a sustainable manner.”
We made changes to the framework in December last year that will support the increased provision and modernisation of various types of public infrastructure. Local development plans should address needs and opportunities in relation to infrastructure, and identify what infrastructure is required and how it can be funded and brought forward.
John Milne
In my constituency, we have seen promises of new schools and clinics repeatedly broken, but in every case it was not the developer or local council that let people down but national bodies such as the Department for Education and integrated care boards. They do it to save money by cramming more kids into existing schools and more patients into packed clinics. In the light of the 21,000 extra houses that have just been announced by the Chancellor for Horsham district, will the Minister meet me to discuss how we can legally ensure that key local infrastructure promises are met?
Matthew Pennycook
The hon. Gentleman knows that I am always happy to sit down and talk to him about these and other issues. It must be said that when preparing a local plan, planning practice guidance recommends that local planning authorities use available evidence of infrastructure requirements to prepare an infrastructure funding statement. Local authorities are not doing that in all cases, which is why the chief planner wrote to all local planning authorities recently to remind them of their statutory duty to do so. We can discuss that and other issues when I meet him.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
New housing developments agreed under the previous Government have been built on the green belt around villages in the Shipley constituency, such as Burley in Wharfedale, Wilsden, Denholme and Cullingworth, often without the vital investment in infrastructure such as GP practices, schools and other council services. Will the Minister reassure my constituents that as we build the much-needed affordable and social homes, we will prioritise brownfield and ensure adequate investment in the community?
Matthew Pennycook
I can give my hon. Friend that assurance; ours is a brownfield-first policy. She highlights an important point. The previous Government released vast swathes of the green belt in a haphazard and chaotic manner. We are taking a strategic approach to green-belt release, prioritising the release of the lowest-quality grey belt, and we are ensuring that where that happens, subject to our golden rules, we see higher levels of affordable housing and infrastructure. It is a much smarter approach. The previous Government did not adopt it, and they should stop carping about it now.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
Water companies are not statutory consultees on individual planning applications, but they are consulted as part of the preparation of local development plans. On 26 January, the Government declared a moratorium on any new statutory consultees and announced a review of the existing statutory consultee arrangements. A consultation on proposals designed to limit the scope of statcons to where advice is strictly necessary and to remove entirely a limited number of them will be published in the near future.
Edward Morello
Outdated sewer systems mix clean rainwater with sewage, polluting rivers and placing strains on outdated infrastructure. If the Government are intent on not making water companies statutory consultees, a national rainwater management strategy mandating rainwater harvesting on new homes and major renovations would ease the pressure on infrastructure and reduce the likelihood of sewage overflows. What recent conversations has the Minister had with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs about introducing a national rainwater management strategy? Will he consider making rainwater harvesting a mandatory requirement on new housing developments?
Matthew Pennycook
The hon. Gentleman raises an apt point. I regularly meet colleagues from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to discuss a range of issues, including water efficiency and management. I draw his attention to the consultation we launched just last month to review the water efficiency standards in the Building Regulations 2010. As part of that, we are investigating how we can bring technologies such as rainwater harvesting into new developments safely.
Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
The Government recognise that community-led housing delivers a wide range of benefits. We strengthened support for it in the revised national planning policy framework published last year, and in March we announced a 10-year social finance investment to provide capital funding for community-led housing. As part of the development of our long-term housing strategy, we are considering how the Government might further support the growth of the sector.
Gareth Thomas
Redwood Housing Co-operative spans five floors of social housing in the iconic OXO Tower on the south bank of the River Thames. Given that Redwood is run by its tenants, charges some of the lowest rents in central London and offers some of the best views, should not every community have a Redwood?
Matthew Pennycook
My hon. Friend has long championed co-operatives, and I recognise his commitment to expanding co-ops in London and across the country. With that example, he draws our attention to the benefits that they can provide. We are considering opportunities to legislate to establish a legal framework for a co-operative housing tenure, which would help formalise the rights and responsibilities of both co-operatives and their tenants, and make co-operative housing a more attractive option. As my hon. Friend will know, I am more than happy to discuss the matter with him further at a suitable opportunity in the near future.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
In my Chichester constituency, a lack of available land drives high-density schemes in rural villages that lack the necessary infrastructure, and the schemes quickly become unpopular locally. Community land trusts such as the Westbourne Land Trust gain local support and deliver affordable homes, and that gives communities a real stake in that development. Does the Minister agree that community buy-in is essential if the Government are to reach their target for building homes? What steps are being taken to help community land trusts go from the planning phase to building homes?
Matthew Pennycook
The hon. Lady outlined another benefit of community land trusts: getting local buy-in. The availability of land is an issue for CLTs. I have already set out some of the ways that we are supporting them through new investment. As the Secretary of State said earlier, the new social and affordable housing programme will be designed with the flexibility necessary to support a greater diversity of social and affordable housing supply, including community-led housing.
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
Mr Tom Morrison (Cheadle) (LD)
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
As per my answer to question 4, the changes that we made to national planning policy last year were intended to support the increased provision and modernisation of various types of public infrastructure. When it comes to ensuring that necessary infrastructure is funded and brought forward in Cheadle or any other part of the country, we look to local development plans and infrastructure funding statements to address needs and opportunities.
Mr Morrison
Residents in Cheadle have contacted me about the huge number of speculative development applications coming through, particularly in Cheadle Hulme and Woodford. We are now being told that a 10,000-home new town will potentially be situated on the constituency border. GPs are completely oversubscribed in Woodford, we have not had a Sunday rail service in over a year, and the bus services are completely inadequate. This has been raised time and again by my constituents. Will the Minister meet me and the leader of Stockport council to talk about this issue, and how the Government can get developers to start investing in infrastructure before they develop homes?
Matthew Pennycook
The hon. Gentleman has raised a number of issues. The best way in which local planning authorities can protect themselves from speculative development is to have an up-to-date local development plan in place. He touched on developer contributions; we remain committed to strengthening the existing system to ensure that new developments provide the necessary affordable homes and infrastructure. We will set out further details in due course.
When it comes to the prospective new town that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, I gently point out that it was not the Government but the independent, expert new towns taskforce that recommended to the Government that Adlington and 11 other locations in England should be the sites for the next generation of new town. On 28 September, we commenced a strategic environmental assessment to understand the environmental implications of new towns, and that will support final decisions. But no final decisions have yet been taken.
Mr Speaker
Order. I should say that that is the Adlington in Cheshire, not Lancashire.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
The Government continue to implement those reforms to the leasehold system that are already in statute and to progress the wider set of reforms necessary to end the feudal leasehold system for good. We have brought into force a number of provisions in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024, with more in the pipeline, and we remain on course to publish an ambitious draft leasehold and commonhold reform Bill later this year.
Mrs Brackenridge
Leaseholders in my constituency face unfair practices such as management fees tripling in as many years, stretching families beyond their means. Yet there are also a great number of responsible agents, including L&A Lettings, based in Ashmore Park. Can the Minister set out how the Government’s leasehold reform will strike the right balance, protecting leaseholders from poor practice without overburdening responsible agents, who already provide a transparent and fair service?
Matthew Pennycook
We know that there are good managing agents who work hard to ensure that the residents they are responsible for are safe and secure and that homes are properly looked after, but we also know that far too many leaseholders suffer from poor service at the hands of unscrupulous managing agents. In our recent consultation on strengthening leaseholder protections over charges and services, we consulted on powers to appoint a manager or replace a managing agent as well as on mandatory professional qualifications for managing agents in England. We think that those proposals strike the right balance, but we are analysing all the feedback we receive to that consultation.
Peter Prinsley
I thank the Minister for his answer to the previous question. In my constituency of Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket, leaseholders are facing soaring service charges and falling standards. Some have told me that they are considering withholding payment. Does my hon. Friend agree that much greater regulation of property managers is urgently needed to ensure accountability and standards?
Matthew Pennycook
My hon. Friend highlights that, as many of us know, the reality of home ownership for so many leaseholders falls far short of the dream. We absolutely agree that we need to strengthen the regulation of managing agents, to drive up the standard of their service. We are looking again at Lord Best’s 2019 report on regulating the property agent sector, particularly in the light of the recommendations in the final Grenfell inquiry report. We have set out a number of specific proposals in the consultation that I referred to in my previous answer. Our preferred approach in implementing mandatory professional qualifications is for agents to belong to a designated body, but all final decisions will be taken in due course.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
As the Minister will be aware, some freeholders find themselves trapped in a leasehold-like situation: the wider estate that they live on is managed by a management company and not adopted by the local authority. They are fleeced in exactly the same way by exorbitant management charges, and there are often unadopted roads and poor sewerage. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how we can provide protections for freeholders who find themselves in that leasehold situation?
Matthew Pennycook
We remain committed to protecting residential freeholders on private and mixed-tenure housing estates from unfair charges of the type that the hon. Lady described. We will consult this year on implementing the 2024 Act’s new consumer protection provisions for the 1.75 million homes that are subject to those charges. We are committed to bringing those measures into force as quickly as possible.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
Thousands of my constituents in Stratford-on-Avon now live in so-called fleecehold developments, often with a lack of transparency in how service charges are set and a lack of maintenance of public open spaces, including drainage infrastructure. Will the Minister reassure my constituents that any leasehold reform will including tackling fleecehold and that the reforms will be applied retrospectively?
Matthew Pennycook
I can assure the hon. Lady that we will tackle the injustice of fleecehold as part of the ambitious changes that we intend to make to the leasehold system, with a view to bringing it to an end in this Parliament. The consumer protection provisions in the 2024 Act, which I have already mentioned, will ensure that homeowners who pay an estate management charge will have better access to the information that they need to challenge the reasonableness of charges at the first-tier tribunal. There are other powers as part of those protections and, as I have said, we will consult on them shortly and bring them into force as quickly as possible thereafter.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
I am sorry to learn about the loss of social rented homes in that instance. I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government are committed to reinvigorating council house building, and I direct her attention to the five-point plan that we published in July to deliver a decade of renewal for social and affordable housing.
Sir Jeremy Hunt (Godalming and Ash) (Con)
My constituent Steve Dally was charged £70,000 by Liberal Democrat-controlled Waverley borough council for the apparent crime of building a home extension. I met the Housing Minister earlier this year to talk about abuse of the community infrastructure levy. Could he update the House on his plans to stop it?
Matthew Pennycook
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I agree that we have seen unintended consequences of the 2010 CIL regulations—they have unfairly penalised some homeowners. I can only reiterate the commitments I gave him during that meeting. In principle, we are committed to finding a solution to this issue, and I am more than happy to meet him again and update him on the steps we have taken in the interim.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
Up and down the country, people are being priced out of their communities by sky-high rents and extortionate housing costs. In Wandsworth, the rent for a one-bed flat will cost the average Londoner almost half of their monthly take-home pay. Does the Minister agree that we must put an end to this situation and make housing affordable again?
Matthew Pennycook
We absolutely need to make housing affordable. One of the primary ways in which we can do that is to build more homes of all tenures, which is precisely what we are committed to doing. We can also boost the supply of social and affordable housing, which our social and affordable housing programme—worth £39 billion over 10 years—will do.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
Winter is coming, and nearly 3 million households are living in fuel poverty, which is an absolute scandal. The long-awaited warm homes plan cannot come soon enough, but given that previous piecemeal programmes prioritised private profit and left us without the changes that our constituents so desperately need, will the Secretary of State commit to funding a public body to co-ordinate, monitor and evaluate a nationwide programme of home insulation to hold cowboy builders—cowboy contractors—to account and deliver energy savings for all?
Matthew Pennycook
I will refer the hon. Lady’s comments about the warm homes plan to the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero. If she wishes to write to me with details of any particular cowboy builders, I would be more than happy to read what she has to say.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
It is great that we are transforming leasehold properties, but many leaseholders are now stuck in a gap with their freeholders when it comes to betterment. If they want to green their homes through new roofs, new insulation and electric vehicle charging, they have to pay a huge extra cost. Will the Minister and, if necessary, Ministers from the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero meet me and my constituents to discuss this issue? There is a real gap when it comes to achieving green improvements.
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
In April, the Government described their decision to approve a major scheme to unlock over 8,500 homes next to Cambridge North station after six years in planning as “nationally significant”. Just four months later, the Government scrapped the whole thing. How is that consistent with the Secretary of State’s announcement that he will back getting Britain building?
Matthew Pennycook
I am afraid that I am unclear about which particular site the right hon. Gentleman is referring to. Again, if he wishes to write to me, I would be more than happy to engage with him on the particulars of that case.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Cornwall’s economic potential is vast. Cornish renewable energy and critical minerals can power the UK’s transition away from a fossil fuel-based economy, but economic development funding through the shared prosperity fund has come to an end. Can the Secretary of State reassure the people of Cornwall that our economic growth will not be limited by the fact that Cornwall cannot and will not join a mayoral combined authority?
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
I know that Ministers do not comment on ongoing planning applications, but may I draw the Minister’s attention to an inconsistency? Currently, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is changing its guidance on heather burning on deep peat because of climate change concerns, but there has not been a concurrent change to planning guidance on building on peat. Will the Minister agree to look at that, so that my constituents can be sure that any developments are safe and take account of climate implications?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing that matter to my attention. He is right that I cannot comment on individual planning applications, but I will certainly look into the matter. I wonder whether he would write to me with further details in that regard.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Do the Government accept that it is possible to bring in elected mayors and new strategic authorities without forcibly merging county and district councils in unwanted, cumbersome and remote unitary authorities?
Home Buying and Selling Consultations
Matthew Pennycook Excerpts(1 week, 6 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) has today made the following statement:
The Government are determined to modernise the home buying and selling process. A well-functioning system allows people to move into the right homes at the right time, enables households to put down roots in a community and supports labour mobility by making it easier to relocate for jobs. Its impact also extends beyond housing into sectors such as removals, construction, retail, and commercial property. Ensuring the process is swift, seamless, and reliable, therefore matters not just for individuals, but for the economy as a whole.
However, the current home buying and selling process is long, complicated and frustrating. It takes an average of 120 days to complete once the buyer’s offer has been accepted, and transaction times have increased by 60% since 2007. Around one in three transactions fail, costing buyers and sellers around £400 million per year in wasted costs. Older people often face particular challenges when looking to move or downsize with lengthy and uncertain processes deterring them from selling homes that no longer meet their needs.
These inefficiencies have consequences for the housing market and broader economy. Slow transactions reduce the demand for and the supply of homes, contributing to housing shortages and affordability pressures. Bottlenecks restrict the jobs market by making it harder for individuals to relocate to advance their careers. Sellers, especially older people or those looking to trade down, are often deterred by the hassle and uncertainty of the process, which in turn means fewer homes are listed.
Other countries show that the system can be better. In Norway, transactions complete in four weeks or less, with digitisation driving estimated savings of up to £1 billion over 10 years. Even within the UK, in Scotland up-front information and more binding contracts are already resulting in fewer fall throughs. There are clear lessons to be learned as we seek to ensure our system is more streamlined, less stressful, and fit for the future.
With a view to delivering a faster, more reliable system, driven by informed consumers, innovative technology and high-standard professional services, we have launched two consultations on reform proposals to transform home buying and selling.
These proposals will make transactions faster, fairer and more transparent, cutting weeks from the process and reducing the number of failed transactions. They will also support the wider Government agenda to unlock housing supply, improve affordability, and support the delivery of 1.5 million homes over this Parliament.
Our home buying and selling reform consultation proposes requiring sellers to provide comprehensive up-front property information before listing a property, including information from searches and a property condition assessment. This will help buyers make informed decisions and reduce the risk of late-stage surprises that derail transactions.
We are also proposing to professionalise property agents by introducing a code of practice for estate, letting and managing agents, and consulting on mandatory qualifications to raise standards and improve trust in the sector. We want digital property logbooks and packs to become a standard feature of transactions, reducing duplication and speeding up the process, and will consider legislating to require their use.
We are exploring greater use of binding conditional contracts to reduce the number of failed transactions, bringing our system closer to international best practice. We will work to streamline conveyancing and anti-money laundering checks, simplify processes and reduce duplication, including through the use of trusted digital identity services and we will accelerate digitalisation by supporting the implementation of common data standards, trialling a data trust framework to guarantee data provenance, and continuing to work with industry to drive adoption of digital technology across the sector.
These reforms will deliver real benefits for households. The buying process could become around four weeks faster, and the proportion of failed transactions could fall from one in three to one in seven. First-time buyers could save an average of £710 through these proposed new rules—a total of more than £180 million a year overall back in people’s pockets. Home movers could save around £400 per transaction.
Professionals will also benefit from a more efficient and competitive system. These sectors currently lose out on £1 billion per year as a result of failed transactions and our proposals will reduce the likelihood of this happening. Digitisation will reduce duplication and speed up processes, while also supporting innovation in the property technology sector, creating opportunities for growth and investment.
Alongside this, we are consulting on material information in property listings. This consultation seeks views on the information that should be included in property listings to support the transition to a system where buyers have the key details they need from the outset. Providing this information up front will help consumers make informed decisions and reduce the risk of transactions falling through.
The consultations will run for 12 weeks, until 29 December 2025. Subject to the outcome of this consultation, we will publish a road map this winter setting out how we will implement changes over the course of this Parliament. We recognise that these proposals represent a significant change for the sector, which is why we are consulting widely to ensure reforms are practical, enforceable and built to last. We know that this Government cannot do this alone. That is why we will continue to work closely with industry to deliver these reforms.
Our vision is for a housing market that works for everyone—faster, fairer and fit for the future; one that delivers the dream of home ownership.
[HCWS951]
Provision of Council Housing
Matthew Pennycook Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
I congratulate the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) on securing the debate, and thank the other hon. Members who have made contributions to it.
The provision of council housing is of the utmost importance to this Government. After decades of marginalisation, we are once again asserting the necessity and value of social and council housing, as a crucial national asset to be proud of, to invest in, to protect and to maintain. Doing so is imperative, because successive Government have, for decades, failed to build sufficient numbers of social and council homes in England, and that failure is at the heart of the acute and entrenched housing crisis we face today.
As has been noted, as a result of diminished social and affordable housing supply, particularly in the wake of the coalition Government’s decision in 2010 to slash grant funding for affordable homes, over 1.3 million households now languish on local authority waiting lists, millions of low-income families have been forced into insecure, unaffordable and often substandard private rented housing, and, to our shame as a nation, over 169,000 children will go to sleep tonight in temporary accommodation. Acutely conscious that it would not be quick or easy, we entered government determined to turn that situation around, and that is precisely what we have begun to do. In the brief time available to me, I will detail how the Government are kick-starting a decade of social and affordable housing renewal, and set out the ways in which we have laid the groundwork for a reinvigoration of council house building.
As the House will know, the Government stood for election on a clear manifesto commitment to delivering the biggest increase in social and affordable house building in a generation. We did so to address the urgent need to provide homes for those for whom the market cannot cater, but also because the provision of social and affordable housing supports wider housing delivery. We know, for example, that on sites where more than 40% of homes are affordable, build-out rates are twice as fast. Boosting the supply of social and affordable homes is therefore at the heart of our efforts to ramp up housing supply more generally, and to meet housing need and housing demand in full across the country.
Matthew Pennycook
The hon. Member will know that we have not set a target as things stand, for the reasons that we have debated on many occasions, but we keep the matter under review.
Matthew Pennycook
And we have debated that issue on many, many occasions. I have given the hon. Member very detailed answers as to why, at this point in time, we have not set a target, but we will keep it under review.
As I have said, boosting the supply of social and affordable homes is at the heart of our efforts to ramp up housing supply more generally, and because direct delivery by councils has been key to high rates of house building in the past, getting councils building again is an essential part of our strategy.
On social and council housing, the Government have put their money where their mouth is. As the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire made clear, at the spending review we announced £39 billion for a successor to the affordable homes programme over 10 years from 2026-27 to 2035-36. I can confirm that given the priority this Government accord to social rented housing, at least 60% of homes delivered through the programme will be for social rent.
Accurately forecasting long-term delivery is inherently challenging—that is one of the reasons we have not set a social affordable housing target to date—but we believe our grant-funded social and affordable homes programme could deliver around 300,000 social and affordable homes over its lifetime, with around 180,000 being for social rent. The programme will continue to support regeneration schemes that provide a net increase in homes. It will also permit a limited number of acquisitions. We know these two delivery avenues are important to councils, including those with older homes and those who are looking to rapidly grow their housing portfolios to deal with acute local pressures. We also recognise that certain types of much-needed social and affordable housing can cost more to deliver, including those built by councils. That is why the programme has been designed to be flexible in order to support the greater diversity of supply required, with councils encouraged not to self-censor when coming forward with bids.
To improve financial capacity, to deliver new supply and support long-term planning, for the first time, we announced a 10-year social housing rent policy at the spending review. In addition, we have recently completed a consultation on how to implement a social rent convergence mechanism, the outcome of which will be confirmed at the autumn Budget. The inclusion of this mechanism will be beneficial to councils, with many authorities letting homes below formula rent. Both these measures will support their capacity to borrow and invest in new and existing homes.
Beyond investment, we have developed a series of measures designed to enhance councils’ confidence, capacity and capability to deliver, and I want to cover some of them as they directly address the subject of the debate. As the hon. Gentleman is aware and has noted, one of the Government’s earliest acts was to introduce transformative changes to the right to buy. We want to retain a scheme that helps long-standing tenants to buy their own homes, but we could not ignore the detrimental impact the right to buy was having on existing stock and councils’ confidence to deliver new social and affordable housing. So we took decisive action to deliver a fairer, more sustainable scheme that provides better value for money and creates the certainty for councils to once again build at scale. Changes that have already come into effect include returning the maximum cash discounts to between £16,000 and £38,000. We have also enabled councils to keep 100% of their right to buy receipts for reinvestment in new and existing homes. But we will not stop there. Following consultation, we will legislate for a more comprehensive set of reforms when parliamentary time allows. These reforms will include a 35-year exemption from the scheme for newly built homes, and a first option for councils to repurchase homes acquired through right to buy if they are sold on. On top of this, from 2026-27, we will act on a long-standing ask from councils by allowing them to combine right to buy receipts with grant funding from the social and affordable homes programme.
In addition to revenue generated from sales through right to buy and capital subsidy, we know how important borrowing is to councils’ delivery plans. Since 2023, a preferential borrowing rate has been available from the Public Works Loan Board for council house building. So far, this preferential rate has enabled councils to borrow £6 billion for investment in new and existing homes. I am conscious that this rate is due to expire at the end of this financial year, and recognise the calls from councils for long-term certainty. Considering this, we will confirm our approach to this discounted rate at the autumn Budget.
Many of the measures I have mentioned so far relate to councils’ financial capacity, yet we know—the hon. Gentleman again mentioned this—that the challenges they face are not solely financial, and that as rates of delivery have declined in recent decades, so too have the skills and capacity of their housing teams. In response, in partnership with Homes England and the Local Government Association, we have launched the council house building skills and capacity programme, backed by £12 million of funding this year. This programme aims to upskill councils’ existing workforces, recruit and train new graduates to become qualified surveyors and construction project managers, and drive engagement with the social and affordable homes programme.
To conclude, this Government remain firmly committed to delivering the biggest increase in social and affordable house building in a generation. Within that commitment, we have prioritised the delivery of social rented homes, and we are taking steps to enable councils—whether those already delivering or those with closed housing revenue accounts who want to deliver—to once again build at scale. We have achieved an incredible amount over the space of just 14 months, but there is much more to come. We will continue to engage with councils and pull every lever at our disposal to increase their confidence, capacity and capability to deliver the social homes that low-income families across the nation need to live, grow and build a better life for themselves.
Question put and agreed to.
Playgrounds: Bournemouth East
Matthew Pennycook Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) on securing this important debate. I commend him for the eloquence with which he stated his case and how he always speaks on behalf of those he represents. I thank him for the tenacity and dedication with which he has continued since his election to promote playground and play space provision. I note and recognise his ongoing efforts to maintain and improve playground provision in his Bournemouth East seat. His council will have heard that message, too, as it has on other occasions. I thank him for his ongoing engagement with the Department on this matter. I should also welcome him to his role as the chair of the new all-party parliamentary group on play, which, as he mentioned, met for the first time last week. I am delighted that, through that avenue, he will continue to champion this work, and I look forward to the continuing discussions in this area.
The Government recognise that access to playgrounds is vital for the health and wellbeing of communities and in supporting physical activity, social cohesion and opportunities for young and old people. My hon. Friend made an important point about the benefits that playgrounds bring for parents and grandparents, who find others in their community to speak to when they are with their children or grandchildren in those settings. As the Minister for Housing and Planning, I will speak in what remains of my time in large part to the planning system and how it supports play, but I will touch on other areas.
Our planning system plays an important role in securing and protecting playgrounds, but this is not the reserve of planning alone. As a whole, the Government are considering how to improve both the availability and quality of play spaces across England. Following my meeting with my hon. Friend after our debate on Report of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, I wrote, as promised, to my ministerial colleagues in the Department for Education and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to ensure that we do all we can across Government to support better outcomes for children and communities. We are considering how to bolster further the provision of sufficient opportunities for play, and although I cannot speak for those Departments and their thinking in policy terms, I assure my hon. Friend that the Government as a whole have heard his call to explore a national strategy in the area.
With local authorities and industry specialists, the Government have established the parks working group to find solutions to the issues facing parks and green spaces across the country, including in Bournemouth East. The work includes increasing the number of playgrounds more generally. Our £1.5 billion plan for neighbourhoods will deliver funding to enable neighbourhood boards in 75 communities across the country to develop local regeneration plans in conjunction with local authorities. The boards can choose to use that funding for a wide range of activities, including to upgrade play areas.
My hon. Friend knows—we have a difference of opinion on this point—that it is not the Government’s intention to place new statutory responsibilities on local authorities in relation to play. We are instead giving them the freedom and flexibility they need to meet local needs, including looking after treasured green spaces. The spending review provided more than £5 billion of new grant funding over the next three years for local services that communities can rely on. That includes £3.4 billion of new grant funding to be delivered through the local government finance settlement in financial years 2026-27 to 2028-29. The Government have also committed to simplifying the wider local funding landscape, reducing the number of grants and consolidating them into the local government finance settlement, so that local authorities are able to plan more effectively for infrastructure, amenities and services.
As my hon. Friend also knows, because we have had many a discussion on this point, the national planning policy framework includes a number of safeguards for play spaces. It makes it clear that local planning policies should be based on robust and up-to-date assessments of the need for open space, sport and recreation facilities and opportunities for new provision. That includes places for children’s play, both formal and informal. Information gained from those assessments should be used to determine what recreational provision is needed, which development plans should then seek to accommodate.
The framework also includes strong protections for these spaces, where they may be threatened by development. It sets out clear and robust tests that must be met before any development affecting such spaces can be approved. It means that these facilities can be lost only where the facility is no longer needed or where there is a justified and appropriate alternative, such as equivalent or better provision elsewhere. My hon. Friend welcomed the further strengthening of that policy in our update to the NPPF in December last year, through the explicit safeguarding of formal play spaces.
My hon. Friend knows—we have had this discussion, and I will continue to engage with him on the subject—that in recognition of the importance of play space provision, we are actively considering what more we can say about this important matter, including on the vital role of communities in ensuring that play spaces are fit for purpose. The debate today has, as have other discussions I have had with my hon. Friend, provided invaluable feedback and experience on play spaces and the issues affecting them in his part of England, and he has spoken about others more generally.
We are, as my hon. Friend knows, intending to launch a consultation on what are termed new national policies for decision making—that is, the rules by which development management is managed and taken forward. That currently sits within the national planning policy framework, but he knows we are looking at how we make reforms in that area. I have taken on board his points about what more that suite of national policies might do in relation to the provision of play space. I know that he will contribute, as a constituency MP, to that consultation when it goes live.
A couple of other points are worth mentioning. The national planning policy framework is supplemented by national design guidance, which encourages the provision of open space and play space, including guidance on types of play space and how this can be integrated into new development in an accessible, inclusive and secure way. We are in the process of updating that suite of national design guidance and we are reviewing existing guidance on play space as part of that effort.
My hon. Friend mentioned the role of Sport England. With regard to that role, and potentially, as he put it, extending its duties to play, he will know that the Government have a moratorium on new statutory consultees. However, we want to improve and streamline statutory consultee arrangements in England more generally and empower local areas to make those important decisions. We remain committed to ensuring that our playing field capacity is protected and extended, and the NPPF ensures that those interests are maintained in the planning system, as I have set out.
Again, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East on securing this debate. I thank him for outlining, with his customary clarity and force, the issues affecting playgrounds in his constituency and around the country. Parks and playgrounds provide places for social connection, support health and wellbeing, increase community engagement and volunteering, help people to connect with nature, and can be a foundation for social capital that underpins local opportunity and prosperity.
We will continue to do all we can to bring together key stakeholders, as well as local and central Government officials, across the parks and green space sector to identify effective and deliverable solutions to improve the quality and sustainability of those spaces. More widely, this Government remain committed to creating a planning system that delivers the play space opportunities that my hon. Friend’s constituency and other parts of the country need. I look forward in particular to sharing our updated planning policies and designing guidance with him and other hon. Members in the months to come.
Question put and agreed to.
Housing: North Staffordshire
Matthew Pennycook Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms McVey. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) on securing the debate and commend her for managing to fit a phenomenal number of issues into that very brief speech.
In general terms, I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government want to see more plan-led development and want development generally to provide all the infrastructure, amenities and services necessary to sustain thriving communities. While there is much more to be done, I trust that she recognises that the Government have already taken decisive steps to deliver on those objectives.
My hon. Friend will appreciate that I am unable to comment on individual local development plans or individual planning applications in her constituency due to the role of Housing, Communities and Local Government Ministers in the planning system, but I will seek to respond to as many of the general points that she raised as I can. If there are any that I am unable to cover in the time that I have, I will happily write to her with further detail.
I very much welcome the fact that the local planning authorities that cover parts of my hon. Friend’s constituency are all taking forward draft local plans. It is really important that local plans are put in place, and at speed. Having an up-to-date local plan, or, where one is not in place, ensuring that one is brought forward quickly, is the best way for a community to shape the development required in its area. Where local plans are not up to date or in place, there is a detrimental impact on individuals and communities. We really need to drive that point home: it is not cost-free to not have a local plan in place.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I commend to the Minister the draft local plan in Stoke-on-Trent, which is very bold. It recognises that there is an acute waiting list for housing in Stoke-on-Trent, and that we need to build the houses that we need for local people, so that generations of families can live there. The council is taking some tough decisions and building on pieces of land that residents would not ordinarily want built on, but that is one of the trade-offs for having a growing city.
The Minister and I spoke about an urban development corporation covering Hanley, in Stoke-on-Trent, to allow land assembly in order to bring derelict brownfield sites back into use and build the homes that we need. Is that a conversation that we can pick up again? The opportunity is there with the local plan, but it just might need a shove from the centre to help get it over the line.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I am more than happy to pick up that conversation and see where we have got to. For the reasons I have already given, I will not be able to comment on the local plan in question, but suffice it to say that we have a local plan-led planning system, and such a system operates effectively only if coverage of up-to-date local plans is extensive.
My hon. Friends will no doubt be aware that the Government inherited a system in which less than a third of local plans were up to date. We have taken decisive steps to progress towards our ambition of universal local plan coverage, both by providing local planning authorities that are striving to do the right thing with financial support and by intervening where necessary to drive local plans to adoption as quickly as possible. We are also introducing a faster and clearer process for preparing local plans, which will set a clear expectation that local plans—as well as minerals and waste plans, it should be said—should be routinely prepared and adopted within 30 months. Other aspects of the reforms—such as the introduction of gateways; shorter, simpler and standardised content focused on the core principles of plan making; and a series of digital transformation initiatives—will support that aim.
I very much commend the efforts being made in the area in question to get the local plan in place. As I said, where local plans are not up to date, and where LPAs are not delivering in line with the needs of their communities, areas are open to speculative development. It is right that, in those circumstances, development comes forward outside of plans—the homes our country needs cannot be put on hold—but we have made it clear that that is not a route to poor-quality housing, and we have added new safeguards to the presumption in the national planning policy framework in order to ensure that.
It must also be said that the absence of an up-to-date local plan does not remove the need for local planning authorities to consider the use of conditions or planning obligations to make otherwise unacceptable developments acceptable. That can include the provision of necessary site-specific infrastructure at appropriate trigger points in development. Local planning authorities already have enforcement powers to ensure compliance with such provisions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South mentioned a number of issues in relation to brownfield development—development on previously developed land—as well as green-belt development. It should be said at the outset that, like all Governments over the last few decades, this Government have a brownfield-first approach to development. We want, in all cases, local authorities to exhaust their options for brownfield development. Indeed, we are making that easier: we made changes to the NPPF in December, and we have consulted on what we call a brownfield passport—essentially a means of making sure that, when applications on brownfield land are suitable, the default answer should be a straightforward yes.
David Williams
We have certainly talked about the brownfield-first approach being taken. As I alluded to earlier, one of the issues in Stoke-on-Trent is that we have a number of historic and heritage buildings lying dormant. I encourage the Minister to talk across Departments about how we could create a heritage building release fund, similar to the brownfield land release fund. Those buildings are at the centre of our towns and communities, but at the moment they tend to fall down on value for money.
Matthew Pennycook
I will happily take that conversation up with colleagues in other Departments, and I am happy to write to my hon. Friend about heritage policy in the planning system more generally if he would find that useful.
The point needs to be made, and it needs to be made again and again, that there is not enough brownfield land on registers—and certainly not enough viable sites in the right locations—to meet the demand for homes across the country. That is why we have taken a different approach to the green belt. We are committed to preserving green belts, which have served England’s towns and cities well over recent decades, not least in checking the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas and preventing neighbourhoods from merging into one another. We have acted quickly to replace the haphazard approach taken by the previous Government to green-belt designation and release with a more strategic and targeted approach.
I emphasise that Ministers do not themselves determine what, if any, grey-belt land is released in any given local planning authority area. It is for the local planning authority itself to determine whether exceptional circumstances exist that justify doing so. In those instances, we expect it first to demonstrate that it has examined fully all other reasonable options for meeting identified need for development, including making as much use as possible of suitable brownfield sites and underutilised land, optimising the density of development—a number of local authorities across the country are looking again at brownfield sites and exploring whether they can get additional density to make up housing numbers—and working with neighbouring authorities to assess whether identified need might be sensibly accommodated across borough boundaries.
Where those options have been exhausted, we expect local authorities to look again at green-belt land release. National policy makes it clear that, in those circumstances, local development plans must take a sequential approach: first exhaust previously developed land, then consider low-quality grey-belt land that is not previously developed, and only then consider other green-belt locations. Under our revised approach, the sustainability of green-belt sites must also be prioritised, and local planning authorities must pay particular attention to transport connections when considering whether grey belt is sustainably located.
Leigh Ingham
The Minister and I discussed this issue just prior to the recess, particularly in relation to Eccleshall, where greenfield sites with really poor transport infrastructure, as well as poor sewage and water infrastructure, are being proposed for development. I gently remind him that we were going to meet this month or early next month to discuss that further. It would be great to have that meeting put in the diary as soon as possible.
Matthew Pennycook
I am looking forward to that meeting. The relevant diary slots have moved around on several occasions, but I will ensure that it takes place in the very near future. We can discuss that and other issues.
Because we recognise the value that communities place on green-belt land, we have taken steps to ensure that any necessary development on it must deliver high levels of affordable housing; the provision of new green spaces, or improvements to existing green spaces, that are accessible to the public; and necessary improvements to local or national infrastructure. Our new golden rules, which are the mechanism by which we will deliver that public gain, will apply where a major housing development is proposed on green-belt land, released either through plan making or subject to a planning application.
Matthew Pennycook
I will make this the final intervention; otherwise, I will not be able to cover all of the many topics that were raised.
Gareth Snell
While the Minister is talking about green-belt land, I want to talk about the Stoke-on-Trent local plan. Berryhill Fields in my constituency has been given a reprieve from previous Conservative plans to build. Other green spaces in Stoke-on-Trent could be protected if there was a way of passporting the Homes England compulsory purchase powers to local authorities so that they could do land assembly in built-up urban areas where landowners who have no interest in building houses in the city are sitting on great swathes of land, which are just causing nuisance and antisocial behaviour. That would help with housebuilding, but also with urban and economic regeneration. If the Minister looked at that, Stoke-on-Trent would probably be up for being a pilot area and seeing what could be done.
Matthew Pennycook
It is probably worth me writing to my hon. Friend. The Government have undertaken a number of reforms—building, it has to be said, on reforms made by the previous Government in the last Parliament—to compulsory purchase powers. Some of those powers are novel; not many places, if any, have tried some of the new powers that I have brought into force. We are very encouraging of any local authorities that want to explore them. Let me set them out in writing to my hon. Friend so that he has the full detail.
In the time left, I want to address a couple of other issues that were raised, starting with infrastructure provision. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South made clear, communities across the country want to see infrastructure delivered as early in the development process as possible rather than as an afterthought. The provision of infrastructure is incredibly important. The NPPF sets out that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development, including the provision of supporting infrastructure in a sustainable manner. The revised NPPF we published last year also supports the increased provision and modernisation of various types of public infrastructure.
Planning practice guidance recommends that, when preparing a local plan, local planning authorities use available evidence of infrastructure requirements to prepare what is known as an infrastructure funding statement. Such statements can be used to demonstrate the delivery of infrastructure through the plan period. There is already detailed guidance and an infrastructure funding statement template on the planning advisory service website. However, the chief planner has written to local planning authorities to remind them of their statutory duty to prepare and publish an infrastructure funding statement where they receive developer contributions via section 106 or community infrastructure levy.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South knows, the Government also provide financial support for essential infrastructure in areas of greatest housing demand through land and infrastructure funding programmes, such as the housing infrastructure fund. The Government are also committed to strengthening the existing system of developer contributions to ensure that new developments provide necessary affordable homes and infrastructure. We will set out further details on that specific point in due course.
My hon. Friend mentioned the issue of section 106 moneys. While there is a variety of entirely legitimate reasons why local planning authorities may be holding unspent developer contributions, including to facilitate the effective delivery of phased development projects, we recognise the need to ensure that the contributions that developers make to mitigate the impact of development and make it acceptable in planning terms are used effectively and in a timely manner. Local planning authorities are expected to use all the funding received by way of planning obligations. Individual agreements should normally include clauses stating when and how the funds will be used and allow for their return after an agreed period of time where they are not.
The planning advisory service, funded by my Department, provides support to local planning authorities in the governance of developer contributions. Any local planning authority that receives a contribution from development through section 106 planning obligations must prepare and publish an infrastructure funding statement at least annually. Reporting on developer contributions helps local communities and developers see how contributions have been spent—and, in some circumstances, underspent—and what future funds will be spent on, ensuring a transparent and accountable system. I know from my own constituency, and I hear from many hon. Members, that what communities want is transparency about where those funds go and certainty that they are being spent on the right mitigations to ensure that development is made acceptable. As I said, we will bring forward further reforms to strengthen the section 106 system so that councils are better placed to strike those agreements and ensure that developers are held to the commitments they make.
My hon. Friend raised a number of other issues, including empty homes. I am more than happy to write to her on them. Community right to buy is not my responsibility as a Minister, but I will get the appropriate Minister in my Department to provide her with an update. She rightly mentioned the provisions in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, which recently had its Second Reading.
I commend my hon. Friend for securing this debate and other hon. Members for taking part. There is clearly a shared set of issues among a set of colleagues that needs addressing. I am more than happy to pick up conversations, and to meet them as a group rather than individually if that is useful, since some common concerns have been raised. I thank my hon. Friend for the clarity with which she expressed the concerns of her constituents and the points that she made.
I emphasise once again that the Government are in complete agreement with my hon. Friend on the importance of plan-led development that provides the necessary infrastructure, amenities and services that communities want. If they get those things—this will not be the case for all her constituents, as it is not the case for all of mine, but it will be true in lots of cases—and we ensure that we get better development as well as more development, that will be a way to assuage some of the concerns that communities have about what housebuilding in their area means. I look forward to continuing to engage with her to ensure that the changes the Government have already made, along with those to come, of which there are many, are of lasting benefit to her constituents as well to as others in the region.
Question put and agreed to.