Building Homes

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)]

With your permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to update the House on our plan to build the homes our country so desperately needs.

This Labour Government were elected five months ago with a mandate to deliver national renewal. Standing on the steps of Downing Street on 5 July, the Prime Minister made it clear that work on that urgent task would begin immediately, and it did. Within our first month in office, we proposed a bold set of reforms to overhaul a planning system that is faltering on all fronts after a decade of piecemeal and inept tinkering by the Conservative party. Today I confirm to the House that we are delivering the change we promised by publishing an updated national planning policy framework, meeting our commitment to do so before the end of the year, and supporting our ambitious plan for change milestone of building 1.5 million new homes in this Parliament.

The case for grasping the nettle of planning reform in order significantly to boost housing supply and unleash economic growth is incontrovertible. England is in the grip of an acute and entrenched housing crisis, and as you, Mr Speaker, and every Member of the House will know, its detrimental consequences are now all pervasive: a generation locked out of home ownership; 1.3 million people languishing on social housing waiting lists; millions of low-income households forced into insecure, unaffordable and far too often substandard private rented housing; and, to our shame as a nation, just shy of 160,000 homeless children living right now in temporary accommodation. Our economy and the public services that our constituents rely on are also suffering, because as well as blighting countless lives, the housing crisis is consuming ever larger amounts of public money in the form of a rapidly rising housing benefit bill. It is also hampering economic growth and productivity by reducing labour mobility and undermining the capacity of our great towns and cities to realise their full economic potential.

The Government are under no illusions about the scale of the task before us or the challenges that must be overcome and the pitfalls avoided if we are to succeed. But we are absolutely determined to tackle this crisis head on. The previous Government, of course, took a different view. Not only did they fail to meet, even once, the target of 300,000 homes a year that they set themselves, but in a forlorn attempt to appease their anti-house building Back Benchers, they consciously and deliberately chose to exacerbate the housing crisis by making changes to national planning policy that have contributed to plummeting housing supply. We know that the changes required to start putting things right will be uncomfortable for some. We know we will face resistance from vested interests. But this Labour Government will not duck the hard choices that must be confronted to tackle the housing crisis, because the alternative is a future in which a decent, safe, secure and affordable home is a privilege enjoyed only by some, rather than being the birthright of all working people.

Let me turn to the changes that we are making to the framework. We received more than 10,000 responses to our consultation, alongside which my officials and I have held extensive engagement with private house builders, affordable housing providers, local authorities and other organisations from the sector. The views shared with us have been invaluable in helping to refine our initial proposals so that we are able to introduce an effective package of reforms.

Before I set out a number of important areas in which we have made changes, let me touch briefly on some of the proposals that we intend to implement unamended. First, we have reversed the anti-supply changes introduced by the last Government almost exactly a year ago. From the abandonment of mandatory housing targets to the softening of land supply and delivery test provisions, the policies that gave local authorities the freedom to plan for less housing than their nominal targets implied are no more. Secondly, we have made explicit the importance of growth supporting development, from labs to data centres, to supply chains and logistics. In the same vein, we have made clear that the default position for renewable energy deployment should be yes. Thirdly, we strongly promoted mixed tenure development, reflecting robust evidence that attests to the fact that such developments build out faster and create diverse communities. Fourthly, we have made a series of changes to bolster affordable housing delivery and enable local authorities to determine the right mix of affordable housing for their communities. That will support our commitment to deliver the biggest increase in social and affordable house building in a generation.

There are four important areas where we have refined our proposals, and I will turn first to housing targets. As we made clear when launching the consultation in July, restoring a mandatory standard method for assessing housing needs is insufficient if the method itself is not up to the job. As the House will know, we proposed a bold change, increasing the total annual national target from 300,000 to 370,000, ending the reliance on decade-old population projections, and removing the arbitrary 35% urban uplift that resulted in a skewed national distribution that was disproportionately focused on London to the detriment of the rest of the country. We fully intend to maintain the level of ambition outlined in July, but we heard through the consultation a clear view that we should do more to target housing growth in those places where affordability pressures are most acute. We have therefore made the method more responsive to demand, redistributing housing targets towards those places where housing is least affordable, while maintaining the overall target envelope.

Next, let me turn to our reforms to the green belt. As the House knows, ours is a brownfield-first approach to development. As a result of a number of targeted changes we are making to the framework, and our proposals for a brownfield passport, we are prioritising and fast-tracking building on previously developed urban land wherever possible, but we know that there are simply not enough sites on brownfield land registers to deliver the volume of homes that the country needs each year, let alone enough that are viable and in the right location.

In the summer, we proposed that local authorities take a sequential approach to releasing land to meet their housing need: brownfield first, followed by low-quality land in the green belt and only then higher-performing land. To identify low-performing sites we proposed a definition of grey-belt land that reflected the fact that there are areas currently designated as green belt that contribute little by way of aesthetic, public access or ecological value. That approach received broad support through the consultation, but a strong desire was expressed to limit the room for subjectivity. We have therefore set out a clearer description of how to assess whether land meets the definition of grey belt, and we will be providing further guidance to local authorities in the new year to support them with green-belt reviews.

At the centre of our green-belt reforms lies our golden rules, which are designed to make sure that where green-belt land is released, the public derives real benefit from development on it, including more affordable housing to meet local need. In the consultation, we proposed a flat 50% affordable housing target, but we recognise that because land values vary across the country, the limited use of viability assessments should be permitted. Through the consultation, we have recognised that that approach risked uncertainty. If flexibility was needed in some parts of the country because land values were lower, the precise amount of affordable housing to be secured would become a protracted site-by-site negotiation. If a local authority did not allow flexibility, there would be a risk that sites were rendered unviable, with the result that no houses, affordable or otherwise, would get built.

Our final policy therefore takes a different approach to managing variation in land values. Rather than a single 50% target, we are introducing a 15 percentage point premium on top of targets set in local plans, up to a maximum of 50%. Because that means the target itself will be responsive to local circumstances, we will be restricting the ability for site-specific viability assessments until such time as we have amended viability guidance in the spring of next year. By prioritising pragmatism over purity, the golden rules we are putting in place today will give communities the confidence that they will be met and will maximise the number of affordable homes delivered across the country.

Another area where we have made changes is to the presumption in favour of sustainable development. The presumption sits at the heart of the national planning policy framework and means that where a local authority has under-delivered or an up-to-date local plan is not in place, the balance of decision making is tilted in favour of approval. We are determined to ensure that where the presumption applies, it will have real teeth. At the same time, we are clear that development consented through it must be consistent with the clear requirements in national policy relating to sustainability, density, design and the provision of affordable homes. The changes we have made deliver on both those fronts.

Finally, in the consultation we sought views on how our changes apply to local authorities at an advanced stage of plan making. Our proposed transitional arrangements aim to strike a balance between maintaining the progress of plans at more advanced stages of preparation, while maximising proactive planning for the homes our communities need. The core of our proposal—that we only hold back a draft plan where there is a significant gap between the current proposed housing requirement and the new housing target—was well supported. However, we are making three changes.

First, we have taken on board concerns that the transitional period was too tight, so we will provide local planning authorities with an extra two months to progress their plans, extending the transitional period from one month to three. Secondly, and again responding to an ask we heard repeatedly from councils, the transitional arrangements will apply where the draft housing requirement in the plan meets at least 80% of local housing need, rather than the numerical 200 homes threshold we originally proposed. In those instances, the plan will not be held back. Thirdly, where plans are adopted under these arrangements, and where there are existing plans based on the old targets due to run for a number of years yet, we want to see the level of ambition raised sooner rather than later. As a result, from 1 July 2026, we will expect authorities with plans adopted under the old standard method to provide an extra year’s worth of homes in their housing pipeline, helping to accelerate the delivery of new homes.

We recognise that we are asking much from many local authorities, and we are determined to support local leaders trying in good faith to deliver homes for their communities. That is why across dedicated local plan funding, the planning capacity and capability support announced at the Budget and income from raised fees, we will be injecting more than £100 million into the system in the coming year.

We are confident that the revised framework that we are introducing today will support significantly higher rates of house building and sustained economic growth. We have listened carefully to the views expressed in the consultation and adjusted several areas of policy accordingly; now it is for others to do their part. Developers must turn supportive words into action, bringing forward new sites and building them out at pace. Local authorities must embrace the challenge of higher targets and push for more and better development in their areas.

We have moved fast. We have not held back. We have not shied away from controversial decisions, or wavered in the face of those who have sought to chip away at our resolve. With focus and determination, we have pushed on to ensure that we are putting in place a planning system geared toward meeting housing need in full and unleashing economic growth. Change will take time as homes are not built overnight and our dire inheritance means that the climb out of the trough we are in will be a steep one, but by implementing this revised framework today, we have taken another decisive step toward a future in which everyone will enjoy a decent, safe, secure and affordable home in which to live.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. First, I welcome the ambitious target of 1.5 million homes in this Parliament. I think he may have unintentionally misled the House regarding the “dire inheritance” that he claims. Conservative Members are rightly proud of our record on housing delivery. [Interruption.] Really. Between 2013 and 2023, we saw a record level of new housing formations, greater than any other period since the 1960s. We delivered 550,000 affordable homes since 2010, including 63,000 in 2022-23 alone.

What we do not welcome is the war on rural England that the Minister is pursuing. Following on from the family farm tax and the withdrawal of the rural services delivery grant, we now see a massive shift to mass house building in rural areas and on green belt. We do not welcome the bulldozing of democratic accountability. We do not welcome the lowering of housing targets for urban areas, including a 20% reduction in London, which is already missing its targets by 50%. We also do not welcome an average doubling—a 100% increase—for predominantly rural areas.

The reality for local residents in areas such as Westmorland, Cumberland, North Yorkshire and the home counties is that they will one day wake up to realise that they will face targets of up to 600% increases. They will call their local councillor to ask them to oppose a specific application and be shocked at the response, which will be, “I am sorry; we no longer have the right to vote against an individual application.” They will be even more shocked if they become aware of what Labour said in opposition. Its Opposition motion on 21 June 2021 called on the previous Government to

“protect the right of communities to object to individual planning applications.”

The Minister is now taking that away.

Local residents will be more shocked again when they become aware that the Minister himself used that right in 2021 to object to an application for 1,500 homes on a brownfield site in his constituency. Indeed, the Secretary of State also used that right to object to a development in her constituency in 2017. Same old Labour: do as I say, not as I do.

The reality is that the Government will fail to deliver on their target. Members need not listen to me; they should listen to the chief executive officer of Homes England, who admitted in a leaked email that it is a two-Parliament objective rather than deliverable in this Parliament. The Centre for Cities and the Office for Budget Responsibility have both said that only 1.1 million homes will be delivered in England in this Parliament, and indeed there will be only 1.3 million homes across the UK, which is lower than we delivered in the last Parliament—another broken promise from Labour. As the Leader of the Opposition said, we will be there for the Minister and the Secretary of State when they fail to deliver on that promise.

This planning framework pushes development to rural areas, concreting over green belt, green fields and over our green and pleasant land, rather than focusing and supporting building in urban areas where we need to build the most. And to what end? Due to the loosening of restrictions on visa requirements such as the salary threshold, and the scrapping of the Rwanda deterrent, the majority of the homes that the Government deliver will be required for people coming into this country rather than for British citizens.

Labour has also consistently failed on affordable homes. Under the London Labour Mayor, new affordable housing in London is down by 88%, yet across England, the Conservative Government delivered more than half a million homes. They have already weakened their requirement for 50% affordable homes on the green belt by allowing the use of viability assessments. That change will mean fewer affordable homes.

The Labour Government have already failed first-time buyers. The Conservative Government doubled the number of those buying every year compared with 2010, by means of the stamp duty discounts, Help to Buy, right to buy and our affordable homes programmes—some of which helped the Secretary of State herself get on the housing ladder. Those have been axed by this socialist Government pulling up the housing ladder. They will build over rural areas while claiming it is grey belt land, but we delivered over 1 million homes in the last Parliament alone. It is vital more than ever that we build in the right places with the right infrastructure, but the Prime Minister has already admitted that he will bulldoze through the concerns of local communities. If the Government really want homes to be built where they are needed, they must think again.

Finally, how many of the Minister’s 1.5 million homes will be affordable? What does he expect will be the split for social rent, affordable rent and affordable homes to purchase, particularly given the use of viability assessments? On planning capacity, will he set out why his resourcing of planning authorities, which we broadly welcome, has risen from £20 million in his manifesto, to £46 million in the Budget, to £100 million today? How is that consistent with the Budget? Why is he deliberately making it more difficult for first-time buyers to buy a home? What percentage of the 1.5 million target does he expect will be needed for immigrant households?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for some of his responses, and for those questions. I am glad that he broadly supports the Government’s target of 1.5 million homes. As he will know, the previous Government did not achieve their target—300,000 homes a year when disaggregated—once in 14 years.

There were so many inaccuracies and misleading statements in that response, and a fundamental misunderstanding of the framework that we have planned, that I am not sure where to start. The assertion that we are waging war on rural England or that we have distributed housing targets predominantly towards rural areas is simply wrong. We are focusing—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman might wish to listen to the response and focus on the detail of the framework that we have published. We are focusing growth across our city regions. Housing need across mayoral combined authority areas will increase by over 20% compared with the current standard method. Similarly, on the green belt, it is not the case that we are allowing viability assessments—I was very clear in my statement. We are restricting the use of site-level viability assessments on green belt release until we have refreshed viability planning policy guidance in the new year, at which point we will consider exemptions for previously developed land and large sites.

We prioritise the importance of up-to-date local plans. We inherited a system from the previous Government of less than a third up-to-date local plan coverage. That is unsustainable. We want communities more involved at an early stage, shaping their local plans. That is the best way that they can shape development. The hon. Gentleman mischaracterises our working paper proposals on planning committees; as we discussed at length in the urgent question earlier in the week, we are simply talking about streamlining the planning system to ensure that trained, professional planning officers take the appropriate decisions, and elected members get to focus on the largest and most controversial applications.

I am not going to respond to the taunt about sites in my constituency.

[Hon. Members]

Why not?

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

Because I have outlined my position many, many times before. I objected to a 1,500-home scheme that I thought was poor quality—I thought we could do better. It is very interesting, I note to Opposition Members, that consent for that was given many years ago, but not a spade has been put in the ground. That is the type of speculative development we need to see less of. We need more planned development through the planning system.

I will briefly answer the hon. Gentleman’s questions. We cannot put a precise number on the proportion of homes under the 1.5 million target that will be affordable for the following reasons. We expect to see many more social and affordable homes come through developer contributions. Our golden rules, which apply to the release of land through the green belt, will ensure that the proportion rises—that 15% premium on local affordable housing rates. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, affordable provision is partly related to grant funding from Government. We will set out details of future investment in next year’s multi-year spending review, along with what the successor to the affordable homes programme looks like and the precise split between social rented homes and other forms of tenure. We have been very clear that we want to maximise the delivery of social value homes.

Details on planning capacity will be set out in the response to the consultation. The £100 million figure I cited is the amount of support in the round going into local plan support, planning capacity and capability support and other things.

On migration, the hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that the majority of homes that developers sell in this country are to British nationals; that most parts of the country have local allocation rules and residency requirements that mean that non-British nationals cannot access housing; and that only those who are eligible for no recourse to public funds can do so. He knows those rules. It is scaremongering; it is beneath him. I know that the hon. Gentleman does not really believe that, and that the House does not believe that either.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee.

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome the greater detail on the changes to the NPPF that the Minister has outlined this morning. He is right: we have to be bold. As he has outlined, the social housing sector is in crisis. At the Select Committee’s recent evidence session, he mentioned a figure of around 160,000 children in temporary accommodation. Those children will be spending this Christmas away from their friends and families. For the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), the shadow Secretary of State to reduce this issue to migration is wrong. He should think about the many children who will be sleeping rough this Christmas. This is about how we improve housing and ensure that we build the right housing to help those children.

We need more social housing to get people off our waiting lists. Our councils are at breaking point, with some developers using the viability clause as a way of not delivering on the much-needed affordable homes that they have promised. Communities must be able to trust the planning process. Will the Minister assure the House that local councils will see a significant increase in the affordable homes programme next year to allow them to meet the Government’s housing targets?

Secondly, I want to touch briefly on the land classification outlined in the strategy, which could affect the way in which communities are able to shape local developments. Too often we see a disproportionate impact on high-end developments, which does nothing to help people to get on the housing ladder. Is the Minister confident that the update to the NPPF will ensure that new homes will be based in improved developments with amenities such as schools, GP surgeries and other accessible things, so that local residents can see tangible benefits in the developments coming forward in their area?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for those questions and for her broad support for the framework we have announced today. On social rented housing in particular, she is absolutely right. The previous Conservative Government’s record on social rented homes is absolutely dire. The figures speak for themselves. Not only did they fail to deliver new social affordable homes beyond anything more than 10,000 units a year, but they engineered the decline of social housing and ran down our stock through various interventions, including the slashing of affordable homes programme funding and increased generosity in the right- to-buy discounts, which my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister did not benefit from. We have returned the discount to the rate at which she accessed housing. The Conservatives’ record on social rented housing speaks for itself.

On future investment in affordable housing and social rented homes, as I have said, we will set out details in the multi-year spending review next year. We want to prioritise the delivery of social rented homes given the important role they play in addressing the housing crisis, and in resolving the particularly acute end of that crisis in the form of temporary accommodation.

On the NPPF more widely, I can give my hon. Friend those assurances. The targeted changes to the framework we have made today will support the delivery of infra- structure. As I have already said, when it comes to the release of green-belt land, our golden rules will ensure that we get a higher proportion of affordable housing, and also infrastructure and amenities and access to green space through that additional public benefit.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

The Liberal Democrats support the provision of new homes. Somerset West and Taunton district council in my constituency, under Liberal Democrat control since 2019, has approved thousands of new homes to the extent that the town is now one of the fastest-growing in the UK, with 9% population growth to 2021, partly because it is such a wonderful place to live. Somerset is now pioneering the first new council houses in a generation in parts of the county, many of them zero carbon. We welcome the policy change on renewable energy and the extension in the transitional arrangements, although I urge the Minister to consider, in exceptional circumstances, a six-month transition rather than three months. I know that Members on several Benches wish to see that on behalf of their authorities.

Trust in the planning system, like trust in politics, is not where it should be. As with bypassing planning committees, imposing housing numbers on councils takes decision out of the hands of elected councillors and local people, which is undemocratic. We would reverse that. Trust in planning demands that people know that our most precious green spaces are fully protected. Every authority should have the same level of green belt protection, plus precious green wedges and green spaces in their areas. Rather than Whitehall diktat, plans for new homes should be led by communities and our councils, and those homes should be genuinely affordable to local people. Councils such as Eastleigh have shown that where those new homes come with jobs, schools and public transport, community consent follows. We will not solve the crisis in care, for example, unless we have the homes for older and vulnerable people, supported by the GP surgeries and care services they require.

If any target is to be mandatory, therefore, it should be our country’s need for 150,000 new social homes per year and for low-cost home ownership through options such as rent to buy to give people a real foot on the ladder. That should be funded from capital borrowing, just as Labour Governments and, historically, Liberal Governments funded our stock of council houses in the past, including the use of compulsory purchase, before Conservative Governments sold them off hand over fist until soon there will be almost none left.

Top-down planning diktats risk a surge in speculative greenfield permissions of the kind that the Minister is concerned about, for homes that are out of people’s reach. Instead, let us fund, incentivise and focus on the social and affordable homes that we need: zero-carbon homes that tread lightly on the land, restoring nature and in doing so restoring trust in local people and the councillors whom they elect to take the decisions that most affect them and their communities.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am not sure I detected a question there, but there were several points. I will endeavour to respond to at least a few of them. I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s broad support for the framework and, in particular, for renewable energy deployment.

On the charge that we are bypassing local democracy and local communities, I refute that entirely. We are encouraging, in the way that the previous Government did, the adoption of up-to-date local plans that are the best means of shaping development in any particular part of the country. That is where local people and communities can get involved to determine what development looks like and where it goes, but it must be a conversation about what development looks like and where it goes, rather than whether it happens at all. Under the current system, as a result of the NPPF changes in December 2023 and the fact that we have less than a third up-to-date plan coverage, there is too much speculative development outside of plans, which communities are rightly taking issue with.

On social rented homes, as I have said to the hon. Gentleman previously, until he comes up with a less vague way of funding 150,000 social rented homes, we simply cannot take the point seriously. The Liberal Democrats got away with having no housing spending totals in their election manifesto. I applaud the ambition, but we take a more realistic path to boosting social and affordable homes, putting forward only what we know we can deliver within the spending constraints that we face.

Lastly, I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman that we need to reform how CPO works. We are taking forward the discretionary power to disapply hope value that the previous Government took through—I commend them for doing that in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. We need that power tested, but we need to go further and we intend to do so in the forthcoming planning and infrastructure Bill.

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

Following 14 years of neglect, indifference and, at times, downright obstruction by the Conservatives, housing in Newcastle is the No. 1 issue that constituents bring to me, and my inbox is full of heartrending stories of families unable to put a roof over their children’s heads. I therefore welcome the statement, and look forward to working with Newcastle city council to build the homes that my constituents need so much.

Will the Minister explain in a bit more detail how he will ensure that these homes are of the quality that my constituents deserve, and that the necessary infrastructure, particularly schools, will be built alongside them?

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend is right. The Conservatives can try to scrub the record all they like, but it speaks for itself. The so-called planning concern group in the last Parliament persuaded the previous Government to make changes to the national planning policy that allowed local areas to plan for fewer homes than their target required. That has led to a rush of plans coming in “under number”, some of which we will have to undo through changes in the framework.

As I have said, we are making targeted changes to the framework to support the delivery of infrastructure provision. The Government also support essential infrastructure, especially in the areas that are most unaffordable, through a range of spending programmes. On infrastructure-led development and quality, supported by our framework changes in the presumption for saleable development, we are determined that there is not a rush to 1.5 million regardless of what the units look like. They must be well designed, quality units, with the infrastructure, amenities and services that communities need in order to thrive.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call Gagan Mohindra, a member of the Select Committee.

[Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)]

As the Minister will know, Three Rivers district council, which has been controlled by the Liberal Democrats for many years, does not have an up-to-date local plan, and there is already a presumption for development. What would the Minister say to councils that either choose not to have a local plan or are unable to meet the housing targets?

[Matthew Pennycook]

The hon. Gentleman’s point is well made. We are determined to drive up the coverage of up-to-date local plans. We want universal coverage: that is the way to secure sustainable development in which communities can have confidence because they have been able to shape it.

When areas refuse to engage, we will take appropriate action. Today we are setting a 12-week deadline for local authorities to give us a timetable detailing how they intend to put local plans in place, through various measures relating to the transitional arrangements, and how the new six-year housing land supply will bite. We think we can incentivise authorities to come forward and put those plans in place. Where they do not do so, however, we will not hesitate to use the full range of ministerial intervention powers at our disposal. The last Government introduced deadlines and let them slip repeatedly, but we will not make the same mistakes. We will ensure that up-to-date local plans are put in place so that we end the speculative out-of-plan development that, as I said, communities across the country are rightly taking issue with.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call Joe Powell, another Select Committee member.

[Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)]

I welcome the statement and especially welcome what the Minister said about affordable homes, given the dismal numbers that were provided under the Conservatives. Those 1.3 million people on the waiting list deserve a voice in our planning system too, and I only wish the Opposition would recognise that.

What approach will the Minister take when there are multiple local plans, for example the London plan and the London borough plans? How will the targets be worked out between those different plans?

[Matthew Pennycook]

As my hon. Friend may know, the new method produces a figure for London of nearly 88,000. That is more than double recent delivery, and it constitutes the biggest proposed percentage increase against delivery in any region in the country by a significant margin. We expect London to step up and improve its housing delivery record. As for my hon. Friend’s specific question, it will be for London and the Mayor to consider how the aggregate local housing numbers are distributed across the whole of London. Because there is a spatial plan in the form of the London plan, the targets for individual London boroughs need to be viewed in that context. The same cannot be said for other parts of the country.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call another member of the Select Committee.

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

Nothing in this statement outlines the new powers for councils to build development infrastructure—including roads, schools and GP surgeries—before new housing. What powers will my local councils of Broxbourne and East Hertfordshire get to build development infrastructure before these massive housing targets are forced upon them?

[Matthew Pennycook]

Local authorities are already required to put in place plans for infrastructure delivery, and to set out how that infrastructure is funded and should come forward. We have made a number of targeted changes to the framework today, to support the delivery of infrastructure. That will not be not the last word on our reforms to the housing and planning system, and we are considering what more we can do to ensure that we get infrastructure for developments up front, in the way that communities want.

[Nesil Caliskan (Barking) (Lab)]

One in four Barking households is privately renting, which is higher than the national average, and 40% of residents are homeowners, which is 20% below the national average. The number of people in temporary accommodation is through the roof because of the housing crisis. My constituents will welcome the Government’s steps to address the housing crisis. Viability and land value considerations often hold up shovel-ready development schemes, which then cannot be built. The six infrastructure commitments that the Government have made since the general election are critical. Can the Minister give assurances that the Government will deliver infrastructure to ensure that land values increase, viability is met, and homes can be built?

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Viability is stalling development in lots of areas in the country. We need to look at what support can be put in place for particular schemes—our new homes accelerator, for example, is providing planning capacity support and other forms of support—and at why some schemes, particularly consented or near-consented large schemes, are being held up. As I have said before in the House, we are giving further thought to how we examine these issues, and to what more we can do to ensure that consented schemes are built out in good time.

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

This centrally driven intervention drives a coach and horses through green belt areas such as Aldridge-Brownhills and through local democracy. How will the Minister ensure that local communities are respected and have a voice, so that we build the right homes in the right places?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I return to a point that I have made several times during this statement. The onus is on local communities and elected leaders to put in place up-to-date local plans that shape where development is to take place. I know from previous conversations with the right hon. Lady that she wants brownfield-first developments—so do we. We have put in the framework published today a number of targeted changes to support the delivery of brownfield sites. We have also consulted, through a working paper soft consultation, on proposals for a brownfield passport to further accelerate and fast-track brownfield development. Local areas can look to bring forward and densify brownfield sites. However, in response to the point that there are not enough such sites, or that communities cannot work across boundaries with neighbouring authorities, we are saying, “Please look at the release of low-quality land within the green belt.”

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

I salute my hon. Friend’s energy for and commitment to these targets. It is great to see that they are supported by the Prime Minister. The Environmental Audit Committee is looking at the new planning framework and its environmental consequences. I am pleased that, since the original consultation, there have been changes to strengthen environmental protections. Can my hon. Friend say a little more about how he will ensure that nature is not the victim of his passionate commitment? Brownfield sites are often very biodiverse, and trying to achieve the biodiversity net gain alongside all the other commitments simply means that they are not profitable. How will he ensure that those sites can be brought forward viably by both the private and public sectors?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee. He is right: we have made a number of changes to the framework to further strengthen references to climate mitigation and adaptation. We have made a number of other changes relating to flood risk and sustainable drainage systems, and how we can support those through the planning system. On BNG specifically, I am more than happy to have a detailed conversation about our thinking on how to successfully roll out BNG across the country and ensure that it works not just on large sites, but on small sites in particular.

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

In his statement, the Minister referred to the undermining of the capacity of our great towns and cities to realise their economic potential. Does he not realise that by effectively absolving the Mayor of London of his housing responsibilities, he is exacerbating the problem of inner-London boroughs, such as Lewisham and, dare I say, Greenwich and Woolwich, using the green fields of Kent as a dumping ground for their housing problems? We are fighting a rearguard action to protect our farmland from development, in the interests of our countryside and, more importantly perhaps, of sustainability. He refers to brownfield sites. What he has announced today is the undermining of the Secretary of State’s right to rule finally on planning issues after they have been to the Planning Inspectorate. She will now have no credibility at all.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I have a lot of time for the right hon. Gentleman, but I think that sort of hyperbole is beneath him, if I may say so. We are not absolving the Mayor of London of his responsibilities. The previous Government put in place a system whereby the arbitrary 35% urban uplift applied not merely to the core of a city region—as it does in every other part of the country—but to every London borough. That produced a fantastical figure that was completely divorced from reality. We have abolished that urban uplift and reset the standard method. That still leaves London with an incredibly stretching target of 88,000 homes per year, which is more than double recent delivery. We want to work in partnership with the Mayor of London, but we will be pushing him to increase his ambition for what can be achieved in London, and his delivery.

We place great importance on agricultural land and food production. The national planning policy framework remains clear that where significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, areas of poorer-quality land should be preferred to those of higher quality. Those protections remain in the framework.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Patrick (Wirral West) (Lab)]

On the Wirral, our housing shortage leaves thousands on waiting lists. The issue goes further, with children and grandchildren having to leave the area to get on the housing ladder. We want to build quality, affordable houses in the right places. We share the Government’s approach to building on brownfield first, so what steps can the Department take to support Wirral council in achieving that?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I refer my hon. Friend to my previous answers on our targeted changes to the framework to strengthen expectations around brownfield development. We are in the early stages of a consultation, through the working paper, on proposals for a brownfield passport, and we are exploring how we can go further to prioritise and fast-track the development of that land. We absolutely want to work with local areas to look at where brownfield sites might be densified and at how we can get the majority of development through that route, where possible.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

Mid Sussex district council has a local plan, and it is well advanced in making its next local plan, which, significantly, has cross-party support from Conservative, Green and Labour councillors. We also have a design guide, and are delivering 1,000 houses a year, including 300 social and affordable homes last year. We are an example of what good planning looks like. We are even purchasing our own temporary accommodation. I invite the Minister to come to Mid Sussex and see for himself what good planning looks like.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I think a yes or no will suffice, Minister.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am afraid that I cannot give either, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I will add the invitation to the list of requests for visits that I receive from Members across the House. However, I commend the hon. Lady’s local authority for its focus on quality and good design. We want to see more of that across the country.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

I welcome the commitment to overall house building targets—we cannot hit a national target with clear local targets. I welcome in particular the commitment to social housing. Will the Minister confirm that that means social housing, not the affordable housing that the shadow Minister mentioned? There is a big difference there. The viability of brownfield sites is lower and section 106 contributions will be lower, so if we are to concentrate on brownfield sites, will the Minister make the point to the Chancellor that to deliver social housing in the numbers needed, she might have to reconsider the amount of social housing grant that she provides?

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend has real expertise in this area. We are making a distinction between social rented homes—the most affordable type of affordable housing—and others, and we have sought to express that through a change to the glossary in the framework that separates social rented housing from other forms of housing. He is right that brownfield delivery involves additional challenges. We are very cognisant of those, and we are exploring how the variety of Government funds that support the delivery of brownfield sites might be improved as we go forward.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

The Minister has alluded to one of the challenges with planning permissions—namely that, on any one day, there are something like 1 million unbuilt permissions for new housing. Developers ration the supply in order to keep the price high, so will he consider, as I think he did in opposition, the principle of “use it or lose it”? At the moment a developer will get a permission, which is repeatedly sold on until viability means the site cannot be developed. If the planning permissions were either brought forward or lost if they were not used in time, we could get the houses and homes that people want.

[Matthew Pennycook]

The hon. Gentleman, like my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), has great expertise in this area. He will know that local authorities already have powers to issue a completion notice to require a developer to complete a stalled development. To bring greater transparency and accountability to this area, we seek to go further by taking the necessary steps to implement build-out reporting. I assure him that I am giving a lot of attention to what more we might do on build-out, because developers have made commitments to increase the pace of build-out across the country. We need to make sure they follow through with that.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

With an example of a short question, I call Barry Gardiner.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on his statement and, in particular, on the importance he places on the presumption in favour of sustainability and getting the design of developments right.

My hon. Friend is a champion for the natural world, and I am aware that he is sympathetic to the need to include biodiversity measures in all new builds, such as swift bricks, which are an essential nesting habitat for the survival and recovery of cavity-nesting birds. Will he provide this much-needed boost for a declining population that has sadly been placed on the critically endangered red list? Will he ensure that these simple requirements are not only in the NPPF but are translated into the national development management policies to ensure they have statutory weight?

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that we have added text to the NPPF to encourage the incorporation of features to protect threatened species, including swifts, but also bats and hedgehogs. We will consult on the NDMPs in the spring of next year.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

The town of Wimborne in my Mid Dorset and North Poole constituency has doubled in size, with new homes built on three sides right up to the Stour. These homes are pretty much out of reach for local people, and they come with no infrastructure. Shops were supposed to be included in one development, but the developer claimed it could not get them filled, so now we have another care home. Meanwhile, Aldi has made a planning application for a green-belt site to which everyone will need to drive. What can the Minister do to force developers to deliver the infrastructure they promise, so that developers cannot play the system?

[Matthew Pennycook]

There are measures in the framework that will help to achieve the objectives that we both seek. The Government are also committed to strengthening the existing system of developer contributions, so that we hold applicants to the promises they make as part of section 106 agreements, while arming councils to better negotiate with them in the first place.

[Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)]

Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council submitted its draft local plan for examination in July but, under the new targets, it has planned for only 53% of its housing need. Can my hon. Friend elaborate on the steps the Government will take to work with local authority areas at this stage to make sure they fill that significant gap?

[Matthew Pennycook]

In the formal Government response to the consultation, which will be published at the end of this statement, we set out very clearly how we are dealing with local authorities at an advanced stage of plan preparation—both those that will meet the regulation 19 stage requirement and those that will not —and how we will help those with up-to-date plans to top up their housing supply so that they come closer to the new standard method. I share my hon. Friend’s wish that her local authority takes steps to close the gap.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

Will the Minister reaffirm the principle of “infrastructure first” in order to get homes built? In Tendring and Colchester, we are planning to build a 9,000-home borders community project, but it can go ahead only if the A1331 is completed, and it has to be funded.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I support that objective, but I gently say that the previous Government had 14 years to address concerns in this area. I remember repeated calls from Conservative Members at the time that the previous Government should get serious about this. We will. There are measures in the framework that support infrastructure delivery, but there is more work to do.

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

I welcome the Minister’s statement. Last week, I met my constituent Mr Anwar Hussain, who lives with his wife and five children in a two-bedroom house. Doctors have told him that his eight-year-old autistic daughter needs her own bedroom. Mr Hussain tells me that he has been on emergency banding for a larger house with more bedrooms for two years, and he is still waiting. Does my hon. Friend agree that we desperately need to improve our social housing, and can he please confirm that the Government’s plans will help people such as Mr Hussain?

[Matthew Pennycook]

That question sits slightly outside the framework, although, as I said, there are targeted changes to support the delivery of new affordable homes. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we have to do more about the decency of the existing social housing stock. We will be consulting on a new decent homes standard in the new year, as well as introducing Awaab’s law to clamp down on the most severe hazards.

[Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)]

Labour’s new housing target for Harborough is a 40% increase, and the target for Oadby and Wigston has doubled. Yet we can see that the overcrowding problem is worse in urban areas, and the gap between population growth and housing growth is worse in those areas, too. We can see the environmental arguments, too.

However, the Minister has announced today that the new target for London is about 11% lower than the old one. In the original round of numbers, Nottingham was down 21%, Birmingham and Leicester were down 31%, and Coventry was down 50%. Can he tell me what the numbers are now for those midlands cities? Are they all still going down, even as the targets for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston are going up?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I think the hon. Gentleman slightly misunderstands the situation for urban authorities. The housing targets are going up across metro areas.

[Neil O’Brien]

What about the cities?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I have been very clear about this. We have dropped the arbitrary 35% uplift introduced by the previous Government, which bore no relation to housing need. Metro area targets are going up. The hon. Gentleman will find out from the specific targets, which have been produced by our redistribution of the formula within that envelope, what the new numbers are for his two local authorities.

[Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

I listened to the Minister on the radio this morning and I listened to his statement, and I welcome his comprehensive steps to tackle the housing crisis. While I work with colleagues across the House—Opposition Members know that—I thought the shadow Minister’s speech was beneath him. It is the kind of gutter politics we should not be engaging in.

As we seek to tackle the crisis, we must do things with people, not to them. I gently say to the Minister that communication and engagement will be vital to getting this right. I invite him to confirm from the Dispatch Box, for constituents in Newcastle-under-Lyme, that productive agricultural land will not be the default in his brownfield-first approach to development.

[Matthew Pennycook]

As I made clear in my response to the shadow Minister, our approach to agricultural land remains the same. Ours is a brownfield-first approach. We want to maximise delivery on brownfield first, wherever possible. Only when that type of delivery cannot come forward—where brownfield sites cannot be densified, or where cross-boundary strategic co-operation of the kind we intend to introduce is not possible—will we ask local authorities to review their green belt, with a view to identifying and releasing the lowest-quality, most poorly performing land within it.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is a thoughtful and diligent Minister who shares my disdain for the identikit, soulless, ubiquitous housing estates that have been built during his lifetime and mine. I welcome the NPPF’s commitment to design codes that provide

“a local framework for creating beautiful and distinctive places”.

Will he write to every local authority to make it clear that design is a key planning determinant, and is absolutely salient? Will he also write to the Planning Inspectorate to ensure that, when local authorities turn down an application on the basis of poor design, the inspectorate will back them up?

[Matthew Pennycook]

Well-designed places remain at the heart of planning policy; as the right hon. Gentleman will know, an entire chapter of the NPPF remains devoted to well-designed places. The changes we are making to the presumption today will ensure that when it comes to national policy on design, those expectations need to hold in the balance of decisions that the Planning Inspectorate makes. There is much more we can do outside of policy. In the new year, my Department will bring forward updates to the national design guide and national model design code. As part of those changes, we will make clear our expectations about what local authorities can do to improve the quality of design.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call Chris Curtis, who I should have called earlier as a member of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee—my apologies.

[Chris Curtis (Milton Keynes North) (Lab)]

That is okay. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Thanks to the failure of the Conservative party, over 150,000 children will be waking up on Christmas day in temporary accommodation. If that is a record to be proud about, I have absolutely no idea what would make Opposition Members feel any shame. May I get two reassurances from the Minister? First, business needs certainty, so will he assure me that we will not see the chopping and changing we saw from the Conservative party and that we will stick by the policies? Secondly, the issue is not just about the planning rules but about capacity in our local councils, so what will he do to speed up the process of getting more planners into our local councils to add capacity to the system?

[Matthew Pennycook]

We need consistency in national policy. We had too many changes to the national planning policy framework under previous Governments. We intend this to be the big change in terms of substantial policy development. There will come a point next year when we will look to consult on NDMPs, and we will have to make changes to the framework to account for the evolution of those. As I said, today’s statement sets out the big changes we intend to make, and we want them to hold and to be delivered through this Parliament.

On local planning capacity and capability, I made reference in my statement to the £100 million of funding that is being injected into the system, in particular as part of the transitional arrangements to help local authorities that will fall foul of the requirements set out in the new framework today.

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

As a former house builder, I know some of the challenges about viability. I welcome the Minister and the Government’s focus on affordable housing targets and viability assessments, but there is a basic mathematical calculation about affordable housing: 20% of something is better and more than 50% of nothing.

[Matthew Pennycook]

The hon. Gentleman makes a somewhat cryptic statement. Perhaps the point he is driving at is related to golden rules. One of the changes we have made that puts pragmatism above purity is dropping the straight 50% requirement across the country, and looking at how we can get more locally sensitive rates by putting in place a 15 percentage point premium on local affordable housing targets. In the round, we think that will provide more certainty and maximise the delivery of homes coming through that route.

[Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)]

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Cherwell district council’s housing waiting list quadrupled over the past decade under the Conservatives, which is why I committed to my constituents in Banbury during the general election campaign that I would make addressing the housing crisis a priority. We all recognise that planning reform, which the Conservative party ducked during its time in office, is crucial to fixing the housing crisis, but does the Minister agree that it is also crucial to helping us get the growth that we want in our economy, because it is good for businesses, whether they are sandwich shops or high-tech engineering firms, across the country?

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend is right that the situation we are in, with an acute and entrenched housing crisis and an ailing planning system, is not just blighting lives but holding back our economy and the way our great towns and cities can maximise their potential. This is a growth-focused national planning policy framework, and we are very proud of it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Unless questions are kept short, colleagues will not be able to get in, so think about everybody in the Chamber.

[Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)]

I know that the Minister is a man of considerable integrity, so can he be honest with my constituents about the fact that the combination of mandatory targets, a massive increase in those mandatory targets and the fig leaf of the grey belt policy means that in a constituency like mine, which is almost entirely green belt, apart from that which is developed on, there will be massive new development, an expansion of London sprawl and a change in the character of the area forever?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his compliment at the outset of his comments. I do not agree with him for the following reasons. We are not abolishing the green belt but preserving it. We think it has played a hugely important role over recent decades, not least in checking unregulated urban sprawl. On his constituency, I say to him gently that I do not know how he can know the definition of grey belt when we have just published it. He does not know how much grey-belt land there is in his constituency, but in parts of the country like his, the answer lies in cross-boundary strategic planning, so that we can sensibly plan for housing growth, rather than every local area having to account for those numbers on its own.

[Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab)]

As has already been mentioned, there are 1.3 million people on the social housing waiting list and there will be 150,000 kids in temporary accommodation this Christmas, but the number of under 30s who own their own home is half what it was in the last generation. Does the Minister agree that it will take serious and sustained action over the course of this Parliament and beyond to turn that around?

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Contrary to the crowing by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) about the Opposition’s record on home ownership, the rates are stagnant and they are particularly bad for the younger generation. We have a generation locked out of home ownership. We are taking action in that area, not least through our plans to take forward a comprehensive and permanent mortgage guarantee scheme. One of the largest contributory factors, although not the only one, at the heart of why housing is unaffordable, is our failure over many decades to build enough homes of all tenures. Going forward, the framework will support our target of 1.5 million new homes.

[Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)]

The Government have announced that housing targets for Reigate and Banstead will increase significantly. We will move from an advisory target of 644 houses per year to a mandatory and completely unrealistic target of 1,264—a 96% increase. A large proportion of my constituency is green belt. If all areas must play their part in building the homes we need, why is the Minister reducing housing targets for London and other urban areas, while increasing them in rural areas like mine?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I have made clear the point on urban areas and how the 20% increase across the board means we are asking more of all parts of the country. I say gently to the hon. Lady that she speaks as if there are no housing pressures in her constituency. People want homes in her constituency to rent or to buy as much as in any other part of the country. Yes, the targets are stretching but they are achievable, either through brownfield development from the release of low-quality grey-belt land within the green belt, or through cross-boundary strategic planning.

[Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)]

Representing a large and rural constituency, I am constantly contacted by families who are concerned that members of their youngest generation are having to leave Northumberland to find the homes they need. That is just one example of the Conservative party’s war on the countryside. Will the Minister confirm that the new framework is the only way that we can get the homes that are needed, and ones that are appropriate, into our rural communities so that a generation is not forced out of rural Britain?

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. To be clear, the reforms to the planning system that we are making today are not the only part of the answer; delivery of homes is an entirely different challenge from bringing forward planning permissions. We need to over-supply planning permissions into the system to get the number of homes we need in his constituency, and across the rest of the country.

[Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)]

I wrote to the Secretary of State in November concerned about the impact on local authorities, such as South Gloucestershire, that are at an advanced stage of bringing forward plans to deliver much-needed homes. I welcome the extension of the transitional period, but I remain concerned that areas whose figures have increased will be vulnerable to planning by appeal, while they get the new consents lined up. Will the Minister explain how authorities that are doing the right thing will be protected from their strategy being wrecked by speculative applications, while their plan goes through the process for adoption?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I gently say to the hon. Lady that the expectation of having an up-to-date local plan in place is nothing new. Authorities have known for some time that they should be doing that. It was a failure of the previous Government that they did not use the powers at their disposal to ensure there was more up-to-date local plan coverage. Those areas that do not have up-to-date local plans in place will be vulnerable to development taking place outside the plan process, but we are committed to supporting those who share our ambition and are working in good faith to get a plan in place to be able to do so.

[Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)]

Can the Minister set out how today’s announcement will help our small and medium-sized enterprise house builder market and bring forward more sites suitable for SMEs to develop?

[Matthew Pennycook]

There is more to be done in this area, and SMEs and small sites can make a huge contribution to the 1.5 million home target. There are changes that have been published today in the framework that will help SME builders, not least the focus on mixed- tenure sites that we know build out faster and where SMEs can play a big role going forward.

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

The Minister intends to impose thousands more houses on my constituency, when there are already not enough school places, not enough doctors and congested roads. Will he at least look at ways in which financial arrangements can be established that would mean that developers can be made to fund necessary infrastructure ahead of house building and sale, rather than waiting for months and possibly years after completion?

[Matthew Pennycook]

As I have said, we are giving a considerable amount of thought to what more we can do, in addition to the changes being made today, to ensure that the right infrastructure comes forward. I am happy to give the right hon. Gentleman’s point serious consideration.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

The Minister knows, because we have discussed this before, that my constituency of Dartford is already getting on with the challenge of building new homes. Ebbsfleet garden city, the first garden city in a hundred years, aims to build 10,000 new homes over the next decade, with 50 new parks and open spaces, as well as a network of green corridors. I am delighted that the Minister has confirmed he will be visiting shortly. What more can we do to up the levels of affordable and social housing in new developments like Ebbsfleet so that everyone has the chance to live in them?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I look forward to my visit to Ebbsfleet, which is now building out at a faster rate than it was. We welcome its contribution. I have already referenced the changes we intend to make to strengthen the existing developer contribution system to get more out of section 106 agreements. There is more we can do in that area and, of course, through Government investment in affordable housing. We will bring forward more details in the spending review next year.

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

My constituency of Cheltenham is already built up to its boundaries and is working with its neighbours on the joint local plans referenced by the Minister, in part to deal with a housing waiting list of more than 2,500 bequeathed to us by the last Government. We also have a big, sprawling town centre and plenty of empty space. What is the Minister’s message to councils that have that combination of challenges?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman’s area is working in co-operation with its neighbours. As he knows, we have in place a duty to co-operate; it has not been particularly effective and we think we need to go further on strategic cross-boundary planning. To those parts of the country that wish to densify their town centres, we fully support that and are open to any conversation in particular areas about what more they think needs to come forward to allow them to bring forward plans to rejuvenate town centres and bring more residential development back into them.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

He is always slightly out of my eyesight, but I call Martin Vickers.

[Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)]

In reply to an earlier question, the Minister spoke of streamlining the planning system. In my 26 years as a councillor and 14 years in this House, I have heard successive Governments talk about streamlining the planning system, by which they mean taking more central control. It results in frustration among ward councillors, frustration among their constituents who feel that they are not able to participate properly and frustration for Government because, in effect, they fail to meet their targets, as I am sure this Government will. Does the Minister accept that one way of involving local communities, other than in the local plan, is to allow local councillors to work closer with their communities and have some influence over individual major developments? In that case, we would have better quality and the Government would meet their targets a lot quicker.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Where appropriate, local councillors, with advice from trained planning officers, should of course have a say on major outline applications. Some of the proposals we are asking for views on—we are asking for nothing more than views at an early stage, on a working paper—are about ensuring we get planning officers taking the right decisions using their expertise, with members focused on the largest and most controversial developments. I do not know if the hon. Gentleman has ever sat on a planning committee, but can he say, hand on heart, that every reserved matters application, as technical as some of them can be, should come to full planning committee? We think there are ways to streamline the system that do not involve the removal of local control and that adhere to the plan-led system philosophy that we are taking forward and value very much.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his statement. Across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, we clearly have an ageing population. I believe there is a desperate need for dedicated apartments for those in the over-55 age group, which would free up homes, as well as social housing, back into the market. Will the Minister consider having discussions with colleagues in the Cabinet and, I suggest, the Northern Ireland Assembly to secure funding for the over-55s complexes that are needed not only in towns but in rural areas?

[Matthew Pennycook]

The previous Government, as the hon. Gentleman may know—again, I commend them for it—appointed an older people’s housing taskforce

“to look at options for the provision of greater choice, quality and security of housing for older people.”

That taskforce recently published its report, with a series of recommendations that we are engaging with. However, we need to give serious consideration as to how the planning system evolves to take into account demographic changes that we know we need to adapt to.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

May I suggest to the Government that this subject really warrants a full-day debate and not just a statement with questions and answers? For now, however, may I ask about one straightforward matter? Will the Minister look carefully at the relatively small number of places, including East Hampshire, with a planning area that is part-in, part-out of a national park and at the case that housing targets should be set separately for those two parts of the planning area?

[Matthew Pennycook]

The right hon. Gentleman raises a very important point. There are local authorities around the country where the boundaries are such that they stray into areas where environmental protections are in place, such as national parks and other things. Local areas will need to engage with the mandatory higher housing targets that we are bringing forward when coming up with local plans. Those local plans will be tested by the Planning Inspectorate to see whether there are hard constraints of the type he speaks to and therefore whether a plan is sound on that basis. Hard constraints will still be taken into account in the development and examination of local plans.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

In an earlier answer, the Minister confirmed that the Government support an infrastructure-first approach. Will he work with colleagues in the Treasury and the Department for Transport to ensure approval of A10 West Winch housing access road funding, which is essential to unlock thousands of homes that are in the local plan on the edge of King’s Lynn?

[Matthew Pennycook]

The hon. Gentleman’s request has been put on the record and I will make sure that my ministerial colleagues are made aware of it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the ever-patient Ben Obese-Jecty.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

The Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister today launched the NPPF in my constituency of Huntingdon, at Alconbury Weald. However, that development was planned and built under the previous Government and phases 2 and 3 will see a further 4,000 homes and significant brownfield development at scale, but it has nothing to do with the revised NPPF. It is a shame the Deputy Prime Minister did not travel the extra couple of miles down to the Envar medical waste incinerator approved by the Minister on her behalf, against local wishes, a couple of months ago.

The Minister talks about guaranteeing infrastructure. When I asked the Government about a new east coast main line station to support the 6,500 homes at Alconbury Weald, they fobbed me off with talk of an internal review. How will the NPPF unlock the infrastructure that large developments desperately need?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to my previous answers on that point.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. The Minister has been in the Chamber for well over an hour. He will no doubt recognise the strength of feeling towards this subject, because it has taken so long to talk about building homes. I will give Members on the Front Bench a short moment to swap over very quickly for the next statement.

Planning Committees: Reform

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Monday 9th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State to make a statement on plans for the reform of planning committees.

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)]

As the House will be aware, in our first King’s Speech in July the Government announced their intention to introduce a planning and infrastructure Bill, designed to streamline the delivery of essential housing and infrastructure across the country and support sustained economic growth. We made clear at the time that an important component of that Bill would be measures to modernise the operation of planning committees.

Planning committees play a vital role in providing local democratic oversight of planning decisions. However, if we are to undo the damage that the previous Government did to housing supply in this country and deliver homes in the places that our communities need, we must ensure that they are operating as effectively as possible. As we look to develop Government policy in this area, we are determined to avoid the mistakes of previous Conservative Administrations, who were rightly criticised for bringing forward planning legislation without sufficient engagement or consultation.

We also want to ensure that the changes to the operation of planning committees that we ultimately take forward are as robust as possible, drawing on feedback from those who navigate England’s planning system on a daily basis. That is why today we have published a working paper that sets out our initial thinking for modernising planning committees. This is just the latest in a series of working papers on planning reform, and it is explicitly designed to kick-start engagement before we launch a formal Government consultation on a more detailed proposition. As such, I assure Members across the House that there will be plenty of opportunity to engage with and debate these matters in the months ahead.

The working paper seeks views on three potential changes: first, a national scheme of delegation, setting out which types of planning applications should be determined at committee and which by expert planning officers. We believe that that would bring clarity and consistency to both applicants and communities about how applications are determined. Secondly, the introduction of dedicated committees for strategic development would allow members of those committees to dedicate energy to the most significant projects. Thirdly, the introduction of mandatory planning training for committee members would enable applicants to be confident in the knowledge of those making these decisions. Taken together, the changes are designed to help streamline local planning decision making, maximise the use of professional skills and judgment of trained planners, and focus the time of elected councillors on the most significant or controversial applications.

As I said a moment ago, the working paper published today is merely the start of our engagement with the sector on this important issue. It is not a firm set of confirmed proposals, and we will use discussions in the new year to refine our approach. We will then prepare final policy proposals, on which we will launch a consultation in the usual way.

Let me finish by making it clear that the proposals that we are testing through the publication of this working paper are merely one part of a much wider set of reforms to the ailing planning system that we inherited from the previous Government. I look forward to updating hon. Members as we proceed to deliver on other aspects of the Government’s ambitious housing and planning agenda.

[David Simmonds]

Many of us were surprised to hear the Secretary of State tell us over the weekend that there are enough homes in this country. The planning system is an area of interest to all Members and to our constituents; I know it is to you in particular, Mr Speaker, and to your constituency. Planning matters, because it impacts the look and feel of our communities. It has been the subject of numerous parliamentary questions, both at the Dispatch Box and in writing. In response to all those questions, we have been told to await the national planning policy framework. It therefore seems a discourtesy to us to hear so much about the proposed reforms to the planning system in a series of media interviews over the weekend.

Some questions emerge from this. It is clear from the Department’s figures that 96% of planning applications are decided on by officers using delegated powers. That is up from 75% in 2000. It is that 4% to which the local democratic voice is so relevant. On the planning reform working paper, first, what assessment has been made of the impact on local democracy—for example, on the ability of ward councillors to call in a controversial application, or on cases in which reserved matters are approved, but then there is a breach by the developer, so the application needs to come back before a committee for further consideration and enforcement?

Given that 89% of major applications are decided within either 13 weeks or the agreed deadlines, will the full council still be able to call in major strategic applications that will have a significant impact on their area? Already, 87% of applications are granted by local authorities; will neighbourhood plans retain the legal status that enables the communities that write them to have a say on what goes on in their area? Given that 83% of minor applications are already agreed within timescale, who in the local authority will decide whether a matter is to be referred to a committee? Given the huge increase in housing planning permissions granted under the previous Government, when do the Government intend to start work on getting developers developing and builders building, rather than tinkering with a democratic system that has already delivered more than 1 million homes with consent in England?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I have to say, it is quite rich hearing the hon. Gentleman crow about planning permissions in the system. We are experiencing the lowest number of planning permissions and completions for a decade, as a result of the Conservatives’ changes to the national planning policy framework, made in December 2023, which torpedoed supply and hit growth across this country.

The hon. Gentleman also asked about the NPPF. We fully intend to bring forward a revised NPPF before the end of the year. These changes do not relate to the NPPF, as I made clear in my initial response. We are consulting, in an initial sense, on the changes before bringing forward formal proposals for consultation alongside the planning and infrastructure Bill—another part of the Government’s reform agenda.

The hon. Gentleman rightly made it clear that 96% of decisions are already made by planning officers. The other 4% of decisions, though, are incredibly important; they represent a substantial portion of total units in the planning process, because many major applications go to a planning committee for consideration. While we know that there is good practice out there, the number and type of applications that committees consider still varies widely between local planning authorities. Some committee decisions are not made in accordance with material planning considerations, and some committees repeatedly revisit or relitigate developments that have already been considered by elected members through the local plan process. We need to streamline the local planning system in order to provide the homes and places that we need, and to empower trained planning professionals to get the best use out of the system.

The hon. Gentleman also asked about neighbourhood plans. I have been very clear on several occasions in the House that the protections for neighbourhood plans in the NPPF will remain. As well as firm proposals on this proposition around modernising planning committees, we will bring forward further details about changes to the national planning policy framework in due course.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend will know that I am passionately committed to local councils and local democracy, but does he understand the frustration that many of us feel when a planning authority democratically approves a local plan after consulting the community, but then, when an application is made to build homes, the same councillors turn down the application, despite it being consistent with the local plan? Is the Minister’s main objective to try to remove that sort of decision making, which holds up the whole process, and to ensure, in consultation with the Local Government Association and others in local government, that we can find a better way forward, so that we can get the permissions to build the homes that the country badly needs?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. He has huge expertise in this area from his time as Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, and he is absolutely right. We have been clear that the best way for local communities to shape the decisions about what to build, where, is through local plans. It is appalling that we have inherited a situation in which less than a third of places are covered by up-to-date local plans. We need to boost that, and—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) will allow me, what we are looking at, in the changes that we are consulting on, in a soft form, through the working paper, is how we can ensure that planning committees make decisions on the most significant and controversial applications, including those that are not in line with local plans, rather than spending their time poring over decisions that have been made in an allocation framework through the local plan process. Hon. Members will see in the working paper that one of our proposals, for a national scheme for delegation, would require all applications that are in accordance with the development plan to be determined by officers. That will free up committees to focus on controversial development that is out of step with the local plan that elected members and officers put forward after consultation with their communities.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

As there are 8.5 million people in England with unmet housing need, the Liberal Democrats welcome the plans for further house building. For us, the priority has to be the delivery of social homes. We need 150,000 annually, and we need housing that local people can genuinely afford. On the topic of social housing, I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Let us be clear: when Whitehall takes planning decisions out of the hands of local councillors, it is taking decisions out of the hands of local people. That is undemocratic, and we would reverse that. Instead, Government should unblock the thousands of permitted homes that are not being built—for example, through “use it or lose it” permissions, by having more than just one extra planning officer per local authority, and by allowing councils to set their fees and to ringfence that income for planning departments. Will the Minister allow councils to set their application fees, and ensure that that funding is ringfenced for planning departments?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that set of questions, and I am glad that he personally welcomes housing. When it comes to his party, on this issue, as on so many others, the view you get depends on what part of the country you are in. We are absolutely committed to increasing the delivery of social and affordable homes. We have taken decisive early steps to bring that forward, including by securing an additional £500 million in the Budget for the affordable homes programme.

Until the Liberal Democrats set out how they will pay for 150,000 social rented homes a year, I find the hon. Gentleman’s ambition in that area a little lacking in credibility. We are taking steps to get serious on build out—that is part of our planning agenda—but on these changes, we think it is right that planning committees should operate as effectively as possible in exercising democratic oversight, not revisit or relitigate the same decisions, and focus on applications that require planning committee member input. He is absolutely right that we need more planning capacity in the system. That is why we are making changes through the NPPF to support that, and why at the Budget the Chancellor announced a £46 million package of investment to support capacity and capability in local planning authorities.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)]

When I was leader of Manchester city council, I spent a large percentage of my time trying to right the wrongs of Labour and Conservative Governments in the ’60s and ’70s who had made a similar dash to build many, many houses. I spent my time finding ways to fund the demolition of deck-access housing. As a result, I became convinced that the solution to every problem is not more power to the centre. The people in Chorley know what is best for Chorley, Mr Speaker, just as the people in Manchester know what is best for Manchester. Will my hon. Friend assure me that he will look at the mistakes that were made in the ’60s and ’70s in the dash for building, and ensure that we do not have really bad decisions made from the centre, or the exclusion of local councils?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. He is right about some of the bad decisions that were made in the past. I am a keen student of history and am well aware of some of them, and we definitely take them into account when making our own decisions. On what he said about seizing power from the centre, this is absolutely nothing of the sort. We are proposing a national scheme of delegation to provide consistency in how councils make these important decisions. That involves a national scheme of delegation, which balances vital local democratic oversight with ensuring that planning committees operate as effectively as possible. In instances where local councillors are not making the decisions and applications can be dealt with by trained local planning officers—not by me, or by officials in Whitehall—we think that is the right thing to do, in order to streamline the delivery of essential housing in parts of the country that are crying out for those homes.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

There is nothing more controversial than Governments seeking to bypass local democracy. I saw that with the desire of the last Government to bypass local democracy by imposing a special development order on RAF Scampton, and I see it now with the many applications to build solar farms that are ostensibly national infrastructure projects. The present planning system was largely created by the Labour Government, and has stood the test of time. Can the Minister assure me that whatever he decides finally, we will not degrade local democracy? It is essential that people join a council, and join a planning committee, knowing that they have real powers and are not under the cosh of Government, or plans imposed by Government.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that question. We have to take steps to fix the ailing planning system that we have inherited. It is failing on a number of fronts, and trust and confidence in it is at a record low. As for the assertion that we have heard, for all the hyperbole from Conservative Members, we are not seizing power from the centre. We are saying to local communities, “Put an up-to-date local plan in place, and when sites are allocated through that local plan, you can be confident that they will be built out in the manner that you have specified. It is through local plans that you get your control.” However, when it comes to the decisions on specific sites, let us ensure, if we can, that elected members are directed towards the most significant and controversial applications, as opposed to some of the minor applications that involve technical reserved matters questions. I have sat on a planning committee; I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has. In the case of those applications, the initial decision can be re-litigated and revisited, rather than the technical issues being put to us. Let us ensure that those decisions sit in the hands of trained planning professionals, and get planning committee member time focused on the applications that deserve it.

[Chris Curtis (Milton Keynes North) (Lab)]

It is good to see the Government’s recommitment to the importance of local plans. In July this year, Milton Keynes city council went through the important process of developing a local plan. During the election campaign, the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), visited my home town and described the development of a local plan as “reckless”. Will the Minister reassure us that this Government do not believe that local plans are reckless, but consider them necessary for the sustainable delivery of the homes that the country needs?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question, and I absolutely agree with him. We have a local-plan-led planning system, in which fewer than a third of areas have an up-to-date local plan, and that is unsustainable. We are absolutely determined to drive towards universal local plan coverage. The measures on which we are consulting—and I emphasise that this is a working paper; we are seeking views, and hon. Members are more than welcome to submit theirs as we refine our proposals—will reinforce and support the plan-led system by ensuring that officer and member time is focused on the applications where that is most needed. Communities can have confidence that once they have an up-to-date local plan, it can be decided what to build, and where, in accordance with the wishes of local communities and the wider national planning policy framework.

[Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)]

As the Housing and Planning Minister will be aware, both Dacorum borough council and Three Rivers district council in my constituency are Lib Dem-controlled; Three Rivers has been for over 20 years. Both councils do not have an up-to-date local plan. Can the Minister advise the House about what would happen if the Government imposed a local plan on an authority? Would those decisions be delegated to officers? If so, the process would have no democratic mandate at all.

[Matthew Pennycook]

We have not outlined any proposals in the working paper that relate to call-ins or the takeover of local plans from the centre. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, though, that Ministers already have powers to take over a local plan in extremis; they have not been used before. We are more than willing to use all the powers at our disposal to ensure that we have up-to-date local plan coverage. If there are local authorities out there—I say this very candidly and openly to the House—that resist the changes that we are trying to make and take no steps towards putting an up-to-date local plan in place, we will consider using all the powers at our disposal. It is through local plans that we will drive sustainable housing supply in the years to come.

[Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)]

I welcome the mandatory training. As a former chair of a planning committee, I know that training was part of the process that we implemented, so it is good to see that it will be delivered across the board. We approved some developments multiple times on the same site, such as a maternity block in my constituency, which was then flipped and sold on to another developer. Could the Minister please tell us what steps are being taken to account for land banking or flipping sites via developers?

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that there are good examples of training across the country. Hon. Members seemed to indicate earlier that they thought that mandatory training for councillors was in place. It is not in place. We know there are good examples out there, but provision is inconsistent, and we think that we need to take forward mandatory training to ensure that all councillors have the necessary knowledge to make the best decisions on individual applications.

On my hon. Friend’s point about trading of land, she is absolutely right. There is far too much speculative development in this country. We have a dysfunctional land market. Again, I come back to the importance of up-to-date local plans. It is through up-to-date local plans that communities have the ability to shape development in their area in the best possible way in accordance with their wishes. On build-out more generally, we are considering what options might be available to us to ensure that the build-out of consented sites goes forward, alongside our new homes accelerator, which was announced a few months back.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

Until September this year, I was a proud elected member of Stockport council. I made decisions on planning, because in Stockport we decide at ward level what is appropriate for each ward. If I understand the Government’s suggestions correctly, the power to decide for ourselves has been taken away from Stockport council. Could the Minister confirm my understanding?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am afraid to say that the hon. Lady’s understanding is not correct. I encourage her to read the working paper. It is a working paper, and we are seeking initial views on a national scheme of delegation. There are three options in the working paper. I look forward to her submitting her views in full, and I will happily consider them.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)]

I welcome the Government’s new ambition on homes and note that the stated aim is to ensure that

“skilled planning officers in local authorities are given the appropriate amount of trust and empowerment.”

Unfortunately, that is not the case in Middlesbrough, because the last Tory Government handed over power to the unwanted Middlesbrough Development Corporation, which totally undermined the council’s planning department and instead used a private planning consultancy, at a significantly higher cost to the public purse and with a considerable loss of democratic authority. What assurances can the Minister give me that Middlesbrough will get the trust, the empowerment and, indeed, the affordable housing that it needs, and that local democratic legitimacy will be restored?

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the importance of local empowerment and of local communities shaping development in their areas—most importantly, as I have made clear in answer to several questions, through up-to-date local plans.

My hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not comment on the specifics of the development corporation in his area, but on planning officers more generally, the Government want to make sure—this is what we are testing through the proposals in the working paper—that skilled planning officers in local authorities have the right level of trust and empowerment to resolve select applications more quickly in the service of residents and business. We also want to ensure that planning professionals are fully supported in their roles, and that their experience and skills are put to best use, which will allow members to focus on the most significant and most controversial applications, including those out of line with up-to-date local plans.

[Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

There are a remarkable number of contradictions. The Minister says that he wants more democratic oversight while removing the democratic local voice of councillors. He said he is being decisive while also saying he has existing powers that he has not used and that this is not a firm set of proposals. He is not proposing anything around tech and improvements, while the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is giving a big speech this week on exactly that, as the centrepiece of Government change. Why does the Minister think that the way to bring clarity to the transport system and local plan is to tell people to engage with the local plan, then at the same time tell them that if they do so, the people most engaged with that, the democratically elected councillors, will be ignored if they then follow that local plan?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I gently say to the right hon. Gentleman that, for a start, he has clearly not read the working paper. His question was a mess of contradictions. What we are clearly saying to local communities is, “Get an up-to-date local plan in place; you can then have confidence that that local plan will be delivered; you can have confidence that applications in line with that local plan will be delivered; and you can have confidence that elected planning members will be focused on the most significant and the most controversial applications, and that local planning officers in those authorities can ensure that other applications that need not go before members are determined in accordance with the local plan as well as the national planning policy framework.

[Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)]

We have had trouble with house building because the speed with which houses are built has been dictated by developers. What we need to see, when planning permission is granted, is that the developer must either use it or lose it. We cannot allow those companies to continue to land bank and use their land only when they are confident that house prices are continuing to rise. Does my hon. Friend intend to deal with those aspects of the housing market?

[Matthew Pennycook]

On many sites across the country there are genuine reasons, including those of viability, why sites are not built out. It is not as simple as saying that every consented site that is not being built out is being sat on deliberately by developers, but we know that land is traded speculatively. I want to reassure my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour that, as I have made clear in answer to previous questions, there are existing powers that we can consider bringing into force, and there are measures that we took forward in the consultation on the national planning policy framework that we think will help build-out, particularly on proposals around mixed-use sites, but there is potentially more that we can do in this area and we are keeping the matter under close review.

[Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)]

Speaking as—until recently—the leader of a district council and a long-term member of our planning committee, I do not recognise the issues that the Minister is citing. A lot of the things he says relate to the absence of a local plan. I fully agree with that. My council has just put in place a new local plan, which is hopefully being approved right now. A better way to get more affordable housing would be to look at the way local authorities can finance the building of those houses and fix that. It would be better to allow local authorities to charge appropriate amounts to cover the costs of the planning, so that they can get the necessary planning officers, and far better to look at how many councils already do mandatory training. I hear from Liberal Democrat colleagues that they all had to do mandatory training, as I did in my council, so that is in place. I would like to see a list of how many councils do not do that. We also need to make water companies statutory consultees so that we do not hit flooding problems. Those changes will help. The problem is not in the planning process. More than 1 million applications have been allowed but not built—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I think we could have built a whole estate by now.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Indeed, Mr Speaker, and I get a strong sense that an Adjournment debate application will be coming your way on several of those issues. Let me address a number of them. The hon. Gentleman says that training is in place in most parts of the country, in which case local authorities should have no problem with mandatory training being requested by the centre, and only a small number of authorities—if it is a small number—would have to put such training in place.

The hon. Gentleman makes points on capacity and planning fees. I hope he will have seen in the recent consultation on proposed reforms to the national planning policy framework that the Government set out proposed changes to planning application fees and also sought views on the localisation of such fees.

In response to the hon. Gentleman’s specific question, I would encourage him to read the working paper. Most planning committees make well considered and fair decisions most of the time, but we know that there is practice out there of planning committees making decisions that are not in accordance with material planning considerations, repeatedly revisiting and re-litigating the planning answers. We have to look at how we can streamline that process, and I encourage him to engage with that work.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

So much of the success of a local plan seems to hinge on co-production with local communities. Will the Minister describe effective models of that?

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the problems we have in our planning system is that not enough people engage with applications or, in particular, with the local plan process. We need to ensure that more people are engaged upstream in the production of local plans because, as I said, they are the best way to shape development in a particular local community. There are a number of things we can do, not least through some of the innovations coming forward as a result of the previous Government’s Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, which has a huge amount of potential in terms of digital planning and how it can allow communities to see spatially the type of development that might come forward in their area.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

This working paper smacks of having been thought up after a request for options to streamline the planning process. What is the evidence that what planning committees decide is the fundamental obstacle in the planning system? There is no evidence to suggest that these decisions are the problem. The problems are far wider.

The reason why the Government will not succeed in building 1.5 million homes in England and Wales between now and the general election is a far bigger problem. Will the Government produce a comprehensive assessment of all the things that delay house building in this country? We would then see how significant, or insignificant, this figure is.

[Matthew Pennycook]

The hon. Gentleman gives the impression that I stood up today and said, “This is our solution to all the flaws of the planning system in England.” This is one small part of a much wider planning reform agenda. He will know that, in our first month in office, we brought forward very significant changes to the national planning policy framework. We are committed to introducing a planning and infrastructure Bill early next year. This working paper is one small part of a larger agenda, but it is an important part, because we know that planning applications are taking far too long in particular. We need to streamline the process to ensure that we get the homes and places coming forward that our communities need.

[Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)]

Unlike other colleagues, I have never been on a planning committee. However, I know the effects of the current system and its failings. I know that only 19% of major decisions are made within the 13-week statutory framework, and I know that we have an absolute housing crisis in this country. I know the impact of the delay, prevarication and rampant nimbyism we saw over the past 14 years. Does the Minister agree that it is finally time to grasp these issues head-on?

[Matthew Pennycook]

In a word, yes. In some ways, I feel quite envious of my hon. Friend having not sat on a planning committee. It is an experience that I think everyone in the House should undergo at one point in their career. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. These proposals are to test some of the measures that we are considering bringing forward in the planning and infrastructure Bill, the objective of which is to encourage better quality development that is aligned with local development plans, to facilitate the speedy delivery of the quality homes and places that our communities need, and to give applicants the certainty they need that their applications will be determined in a timely manner.

[Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)]

In advance of these proposals, has the Minister made any assessment of the number of senior local authority planning officers who move on to work directly for, or as private planning consultants to, large developers? Will he consider something I would like to see done anyway, which is registers of interests, gifts and hospitality, and bringing senior planners under the wing of the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, or a similar independent body, so that we can have the transparency we really need?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the hon. Lady for her suggestion. Proposals in that area are not considered as part of this working paper, but she is more than welcome to submit her views in detail on that point.

[Connor Naismith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)]

Crewe FC, a fantastic community football club in my constituency, has plans for over £1 million of investment in grassroots football facilities, but that is at risk because of delays in the Cheshire East planning department. Does the Minister agree that the Government’s drive to reform planning should ensure speedier decision making, in order to deliver the crucial facilities that our communities need?

[Matthew Pennycook]

As I said in response to a previous question, part of the objective of the proposals set out in the working paper is to test whether they will facilitate the speedy delivery of homes and places that our communities need. My hon. Friend is right that speed is part of the challenge, but there is also a big challenge around the capacity and capability of local planning departments. We consulted on changes to application fees and localisation of such fees in the recent consultation on the NPPF. The Department has a dedicated planning capacity and capability programme that directs support at local authorities, but we hope the £46 million package of investment secured in the Budget will go some way to supporting local planning authorities with the help they need on capacity and capability. That is a hugely important part of the system, and we need to support those who want to do the right thing.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

In an exchange a few moments ago, the Minister seemed to agree that this measure is designed to fight nimbyism. I understand what nimbyism means when it relates to an individual objector or a group of objectors, but when it relates to the members of a planning committee, that suggests that the Minister regards an elected body of specialist councillors as people who are saying “not in my back yard”, when in fact they are considering the welfare of their communities. Would he like to think about that point again?

[Matthew Pennycook]

In general terms, I find the yimby versus nimby debate incredibly reductive; it does not get to heart of some of the challenges that we face with our planning system. We are not accusing elected councillors across the country of acting in a knee-jerk, nimby way. We are saying to them that there is a way to streamline the process, where we can focus their time and energy on those applications that are significant or controversial, and allow trained planning officers to make decisions in other areas, in accordance with up-to-date local plans, which are the best ways that communities have to shape development in their area.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

We are in a housing crisis. Last year, the number of planning permissions granted was the lowest in a decade. What work is the Minister undertaking to turn the page on the failure of the last Government, so that we can build the social housing that is desperately needed in places such as Portsmouth, where viability and cost pose difficulties and barriers? Will he meet me to discuss the Portsmouth local plan?

[Matthew Pennycook]

The evidence speaks for itself. Partly as a result of the change that the previous Government made to the national planning policy framework in December 2023, housing supply in this country has nose-dived. Permissions and completions are at their lowest in a decade—

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

That is not true.

[Matthew Pennycook]

It is true. The Office for Budget Responsibility is projecting that supply will dip below 200,000 homes this year, and the affordable homes programme is on course to deliver between 110,000 and 130,000 affordable homes, not the original 180,000 that were allotted to it. We are taking steps to increase the supply of social and affordable homes, including using the £500 million in additional funding secured for the affordable homes programme in the recent Budget.

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

Labour-led Basildon borough council’s new draft plan is at the regulation 18 stage, but it proposes a completely unsustainable 27,000 new properties across the borough, including 4,300 in Wickford, in my constituency, which is completely unsustainable and would involve concreting over whole swathes of our local green belt. As well as reimposing mandatory housing targets, which are an insult to local democracy, why is Labour now trying to neuter local planning committees of democratically elected councillors, taking away the say of local people, when it is desperately difficult to persuade people to vote in local elections as it is?

[Matthew Pennycook]

Mr Speaker, you will forgive me if I do not comment on the specifics of the local planning question, due to the quasi-judicial nature of the role of the Secretary of State in planning applications. We set out transitional arrangements in the NPPF consultation in July for how local plans at regulation 18 and 19 stage will proceed through the system, to ensure that we get up-to-date local plans through where appropriate and meet housing need in terms of the revised standard method that we have put forward.

We are determined to get these homes built. The right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) says that those levels of housing are unsustainable. It will be for the Planning Inspectorate to decide whether the local plan is sound, but I do not take issue in any way with the ambition that the local authority is showing. We have an acute and entrenched housing crisis in this country. Every week in my advice surgery—I am sure that his is the same—people come to me who are desperately in need of houses. The 1 million homes that the previous Government built in the last Parliament are not enough. We will build 1.5 million homes over the next five years.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

Two weekends ago, while knocking on doors, I met a mother who lives with her two adult children. Both those children have professional jobs and earn decent salaries, yet cannot afford their own home, so they are stuck living back in the family home while they save up the money that they need. The housing crisis that the Government inherited has ended the dream of home ownership for too many young people. Will the Minister set out what more we can do to ensure that the dream of home ownership is open to everyone in my constituency?

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As I say, we inherited an acute and entrenched housing crisis, with 1.3 million people languishing on social housing waiting lists and a generation locked out of home ownership. To their shame, the Conservative Government passed on a situation where 150,000 homeless children are in temporary accommodation as we speak. We have to build the homes that our people need, and we are determined to do so.

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on flooding and flooded communities, and the MP for a constituency that suffers from surface water flooding as well as river flooding, I am concerned that the proposals will divert decision making away from those with the greatest local knowledge. When a flooding area is drained, the water has to go somewhere else, and where it goes is critical to the people living in the surrounding area. Can the Minister reassure me that the proposals will not dilute the importance of local knowledge in making critical decisions about draining and flooding when we build?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I can reassure the hon. Lady on that point. The proposals will operate within the context of a national planning policy framework that has very clear requirements in relation to flooding. We are in no way removing local expertise and knowledge from the system; either experienced and trained local planning officers or locally elected authority members should make the decisions, but we have to ensure that they are making the right ones, and that their energy is focused in the right way, to streamline the decisions that we need. We heard the statistics on how planning applications are not progressing through the system at a timely pace. We need to turn things around.

[Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

I associate myself with the comments of my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald), on ensuring that the planning authority for Middlesbrough sits within Middlesbrough. Young families in Teesside are desperate to get on the housing ladder, yet last year the number of new homes given planning permission fell to a 10-year low. Can the Minister reassure the House of the steps that he will take to ensure that homes are built and that we get Britain building again?

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: permissions have fallen sharply, in part because of changes that the previous Government made to the national planning policy framework, which gave local authorities myriad excuses to bring forward plans that were below their nominal target, although it remained in place. We have got to oversupply permissions into the system, which is precisely why the proposed changes in our consultation on the NPPF would make 370,000 the standard method total envelope. That is how we will build 1.5 million homes over the next five years.

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

The Deputy Prime Minister said that this country has plenty of houses. If that is true, can the Minister explain why the Government are imposing an 82% increase in the housing target for Bromsgrove district?

[Matthew Pennycook]

As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, we consulted on a revised standard method that we think meets the scale of the ambition required to build the homes that our people need across the country. We realise that it will put pressure on those areas that need to increase their targets. We have put forward proposals on how support will be put in place, but that is the level of ambition that we need to meet an acute and entrenched housing crisis, the consequences of which I have set out.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

The Deputy Prime Minister was at pains to say this weekend that nature recovery could happen hand in hand with the ambitious planning target she set. The Environmental Audit Committee is looking at the matter. Our opening inquiry is into the environmental impact of the plans being set out by the Minister. Will the training of planning committee members cover matters such as renewable energy, floodplains and renewable transport to ensure that new planning applications do not negatively impact the environment?

[Matthew Pennycook]

On mandatory training, we are considering a wide range of implementation options. We are keen to work with all stakeholders. I encourage my hon. Friend in his capacity as Committee Chair to put his views into the consultation—we want to determine the best way forward. On nature more generally, we are clear that there is a win-win to be had. The status quo is not working. Nature recovery is not proceeding in the strategic way that is possible. Development is not coming forward; it is being held up and deterred. If there is a win-win that does not involve a reduction in environmental protections, we want to bring it forward, and that is what we are looking to do in the planning and infrastructure Bill next year.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

The reform represents a loss of control when local communities such as mine in the lakes and the dales are desperate for more control. With over 90% of the homes in some of our villages being second homes, we are crying out for the Minister to bring in a change of use for planning for second homes so that we can limit the numbers in those communities. Will he look at doing that in the coming days?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I refute entirely the hon. Gentleman’s claim that the changes represent a loss of control. I encourage him to read the paper, which is about ensuring that decisions are taken by the right local, experienced—professional or elected—members as is appropriate. He and I have had this conversation about second homes many times before. He knows that we are looking and are interested in what additional powers we can give local communities to bear down on the negative impacts of excessive concentrations of short-term lets and second homes. We want to give local communities more power to tackle some of those problems, not less. The proposals in the working paper are in line with that general sentiment.

[Dan Tomlinson (Chipping Barnet) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his work on this and other areas to boost growth across the country for families in my constituency and elsewhere. I note that this weekend the Leader of the Opposition met her Canadian Conservative counterpart —a Conservative who has embraced planning reform and pro-growth measures and who is gaining rapidly in the polls, as far as I can see. Does he agree that it is interesting to see Conservative Members taking an entirely different approach, opposing sensible changes that would support growth in this country and sticking with chaos in the planning system, rather than stability, which is the foundation for economic growth?

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend is right. These are sensible, proportionate changes to streamline the delivery of housing across the country—housing that we desperately need. If the Conservatives want to put their heads in the sand and resist reform in this area, all they will be doing is digging their long-term electoral grave. The people of this country want good homes and good neighbourhoods to live in. That is what we are determined to bring forward.

[Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)]

The Minister speaks of mandatory training for councillors, but it has been tried before. It sounds like an effort by central Government to make councillors think more like planning officers, rather than be representatives of their local community. Those of us who have served on local authorities know full well that there are frequently recommendations from officers to approve major schemes, which, in the wider context—infrastructure, schools, GPs and so on—planning committees have refused. Can the Minister assure us that they would still have discretion to turn down applications, even if the recommendation from officers was to approve them?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I encourage the hon. Gentleman to engage with the proposals set out in the working paper. Nothing is definite, nothing is finite; these are our initial views, which we want to test, and I welcome his contribution to that. We are saying in particular that, yes, elected members should be taking decisions on the most significant and controversial applications, but for minor reserved matters and technical issues on which skilled local planning officers can come forward and make decisions, that is helpful and appropriate to streamline the planning system locally.

[Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)]

Residents in towns and villages across my constituency want an efficient and accountable planning system. Could the Minister set out in more detail how he sees these plans interacting with processes around master planning and the negotiation of planning conditions?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I encourage my hon. Friend to read the working paper. He is welcome to submit his views on the potential interaction of these proposals with master planning and planning conditions. We have not set out specific proposals for those areas in the working paper, but I am more than happy to take his views into account.

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I was never brave enough to serve on a planning committee during my 10 years as a local councillor—there are just not enough hours in the day. There are a range of views on this. I have some sympathy with the notion that we need to speed up the delivery of new homes—we have a housing crisis, and it is important that we do that—but does the Minister accept that, with the streamlining he is talking about, one new planning authority simply will not cut it?

[Matthew Pennycook]

The 300 planning officers that we are working to bring through the system with apprenticeships and training are just one part of the solution to address the real capacity and capability constraints that local planning departments face. I have already outlined, as I hope the hon. Gentleman heard, the £46 million of investment allocated in the Budget to help local authorities with planning capacity and capability. As I said, we have also consulted on proposals for the potential localisation of fees. The 300 planners are one element of how we want to support local planning authorities to get capacity in the system, so that they can make decisions at pace and in a timely manner.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

I am pleased that the Government are consulting on the creation of smaller targeted planning committees specifically for strategic development. Ebbsfleet Garden City in my constituency shows the value of strategic development. The new settlement is expected to grow from 5,000 to 15,000 homes over the next decade. Notwithstanding key challenges—including the need for better access to decent bus services and, in my view, for the Elizabeth line to be extended to Ebbsfleet—the way that the community is being developed shows the importance of planning for place rather than for individual developments. Will the Minister consider joining me on a visit to see how the Government could, for their plans for a generation of new towns, learn from Ebbsfleet’s lessons?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I think I am owed a visit to Ebbsfleet at some point, so I will happily take that up with my hon. Friend outside the Chamber. I am glad that he mentions strategic planning committees—one of the changes that we have put forward in the working paper and would like views on. We think that they should cover, in theory, large-scale allocated regeneration or industrial sites, including urban extensions or opportunity areas—large sites in local communities that could benefit from a more streamlined process. A smaller group of elected councillors with the expertise and knowledge about a specific site could make decisions about it, rather than all such proposals being taken to wider planning committees.

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)]

Is it not the case that the Government have realised that the mandatory top-down targets they came up with are now unachievable, and that, in their panic, they have come up with a policy that will undermine local democratic voices and take people away from, not closer to, the democratic process?

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I do not know what the hon. Gentleman’s definition of “panic” is, but these are proposals that we set out in the King’s Speech and said we would bring forward—that was in July. I am not sure how that constitutes panic, but he might give me a lesson in that.

[Mr Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)]

Some 47% of all the casework my office processed last week was regarding housing, or lack thereof. We absolutely must build 1.5 million new homes in this country if we are to solve the housing crisis and restore the dream of home ownership. I have certainly known councillors to oppose housing developments because they worry that the necessary infrastructure—the schools, roads, GP appointments and so on—will not come with it. What reassurances can my hon. Friend give that, either as part of these smaller reforms around committees or as part of the broader reforms we are bringing in, we will absolutely make sure that we build the necessary infrastructure alongside the necessary houses?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank my hon. Friend for that important question. To return to an earlier question, there are a small number of people out there who are out-and-out nimbys—as we might put it—who will resist development of any kind in their area. There is a much wider group of people in our communities across the country who want to see better, infrastructure-led development. That is something we are taking forward, not least through changes consulted on in the NPPF, but we know there is more work to do in this area. I would be more than happy to speak to my hon. Friend about what more we can do.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

It is not local planning authorities that stop house building, but land supplies and land banking, as we have already heard this afternoon. In Bath and north-east Somerset alone, something like 2,000 homes have received planning permission but have not been built yet. Should the Government not concentrate on land banking rather than threatening to destroy a vital part of local democracy, and why is land banking not part of the Minister’s consultation paper?

[Matthew Pennycook]

It is not either/or. We have to have more permissions going into the system and more timely planning decisions made in accordance with material planning considerations and in a consistent way, not relitigating or revisiting decisions that have been made in outline. However, we also absolutely have to take action on land supply and build-out, and I have made clear in answer to previous questions that we are giving the matter further thought.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

My constituents often complain about the amount of time it takes for a plan to go from paper to the end product. In fact, it is a conversation I often have with my best hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft). [Hon. Members: “Aww!”] I need some brownie points back.

Can you tell me—[Interruption.] Can the Minister tell me how these plans can speed up that process for my constituents in Harlow?

[Matthew Pennycook]

It is progress, Madam Deputy Speaker.

We do need to speed up the process of local plan development. In a way that the previous Government never did, we are going to adhere to the timelines we are setting for local plan development—for new-style local plans to come forward—and we need to ensure that individual planning applications are made in a timely manner, within the set timelines, to give certainty to the sector that what they bring forward can be built out if they put an application in.

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

May I say gently to the Minister that he has been passed a bit of a dud here? I think that experienced Labour Members know that, which is why not a single long-standing Member on the Minister’s Benches has stood up to defend this specific policy this afternoon. Is that because Labour Members, like most MPs, know that the local planning committees they have been involved in and seen make important decisions on a regular basis? They cannot be replaced by planning officers, because those officers are not embedded in local communities. Does the Minister really think that planning officers can replace local councillors on important matters such as this?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I say to the hon. Gentleman that 96% of planning application decisions are already made by planning officers. What we are saying is that there is a way to streamline the system that we want to test views on, which will ensure that the most significant and controversial applications still come to elected members, but that we get the full use out of trained planning officers, who are embedded in their local communities and are cognisant of what a local plan requires.

[Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)]

I, too, am happy to speak with my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) concerning my planning issues, but I am hoping that the Minister can answer the question too. Tory-led Tonbridge and Malling borough council has allowed predatory development in Burham, Eccles and Wouldham, precisely because it has not delivered a local plan over many years. Does the Minister agree that we need firm timetables for the delivery of local plans that are robust and listen to local concerns, but also that training should be put in place for appeals so that taxpayers in those local areas are not burdened with fines?

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend raises a really important point. At the moment, the system incentivises allowing speculative development to come forward and go to the Planning Inspectorate on appeal, because then the local authority or local council members are not responsible for the decision. We have to ensure that we have better, up-to-date local plan coverage, which is the best way to shape development in the area. Less speculative development on unallocated sites will therefore come forward, with more allocated and planned development through the local plans system, but with streamlined and timely decisions. That is what we are aiming for, and this working paper is but a small aspect of that wider agenda we are taking forward.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

Some 57% of East Devon is made up of national landscapes, previously known as areas of outstanding natural beauty. I welcome the fact that these areas are protected from housing and industrial development, but for planning committees that have to meet the Minister’s targets, national landscapes compress the area that remains, which can be devastating for flood-prone villages such as Feniton. How are these reforms going to help people who are seeing housing targets concentrated on their village because they live near a national landscape?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I hope the hon. Gentleman is aware that in those areas—he highlights very real problems about the unavailability of data to shape local targets across areas where there are such protected places—the Planning Inspectorate will test whether a local plan is sound, and will make a judgment about whether such hard constraints make a difference to the allocations the local area needs to bring forward. I am more than happy to have a conversation with the hon. Gentleman about the specifics of development in his area if he would find that helpful.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister very much for his answers. He has put forward some very positive ideas to advance housing development, and that must not be ignored by anybody in this House. Has he had the opportunity to have any discussions with the devolved Administrations, bearing in mind the UK-wide need for reform of planning, no matter where it is, to allow for affordable housing, business premises, expansion and, vitally, the need to increase and attract manufacturing production capabilities for our economic growth and community standards, and to restore confidence for home ownership?

[Matthew Pennycook]

Can I say that I always welcome a question from the hon. Member, not least because it signals the end of an urgent question?

I would say to the hon. Member that my ministerial colleagues in the Department and I regularly meet our counterparts from the devolved authorities to learn lessons about what is different, but also about what is similar and about some of the challenges we face in a shared way across this United Kingdom.

Oral Answers to Questions

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Monday 2nd December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

9. What changes her Department is making to the national planning policy framework.

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)]

As hon. Members will be aware, we consulted on proposed changes to the national planning policy framework and other changes to the planning system between 30 July and 24 September. My officials and I have been analysing the over 10,000 responses received, with a view to publishing a Government response before the end of the year. We also intend to bring forward the planning and infrastructure Bill, announced in the King’s Speech, early next year.

[Louise Jones]

Many young families would love to live in my beautiful constituency of North East Derbyshire, but unfortunately we just do not have the housing for them. Could the Minister assure me that our planning reforms will enable us to get the right housing in the right places with the right amenities, to complement the beautiful constituency?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. The Government are determined to increase rates of house building in order to address the housing crisis and boost economic growth, but we are equally committed to improving the quality and sustainability of the homes and neighbourhoods that are built during our period in office. In the aforementioned NPPF consultation, we proposed a series of changes to realise that ambition, including golden rules to ensure that development in the green belt is in the public interest, and a vision-led approach to transport planning.

[Mr Mohindra]

The dangerous proposed reforms to the NPPF are among the many things that the Labour Government have rushed through in the past five months. How will those reforms ensure that villages such as Kings Langley, and South West Hertfordshire, retain their individual character and identity, and do not have their green spaces re-banded as grey belt, concreted over and absorbed into an ever-increasing Greater London?

[Matthew Pennycook]

We are not going to concrete over the green belt. The Government are committed to preserving the green belt, which has served England’s towns and cities well over many decades, but we have to move away from the previous Government’s approach to it, which was to allow land in it to regularly be released in a haphazard matter, often for speculative development that did not meet local housing need. This Government are committed to taking a smarter, more strategic approach to green-belt land designation and release, so that we can build more homes in the right places and secure additional public benefit through the operation of our golden rules.

[Josh MacAlister]

My constituency is fortunate enough to have a number of potential projects that are ripe for investment, including the Port of Workington and energy projects for new nuclear and other kinds of clean energy. They are essential projects for economic growth, but to get them going we need major planning reform, not just for housing but for infrastructure projects. Does the Minister agree on the urgent need for planning reform for infrastructure, and that any legislation that we bring forward must be comprehensive, so that we can remove all the obstacles that stand between us and getting building?

[Matthew Pennycook]

It will not surprise my hon. Friend to hear that I wholeheartedly agree. The delivery of critical national infrastructure is essential for economic growth, accelerating the UK’s efforts towards clean power by 2030, and energy independence. The Bill in question will include old measures to streamline the delivery of infrastructure and new homes. Furthermore, our forthcoming 10-year infrastructure strategy will provide a strategic road map for how we plan for future needs and support our commitment by making timely decisions on national infrastructure.

[Dr Evans]

Under the housing targets, Hinckley and Bosworth will see a 59% increase in housing. North West Leicestershire will see it go up by 74%, but Leicester city, where there is brownfield and infrastructure, will see it fall by 31%. That is compounded by the fact that the Liberal Democrat-run borough council in Hinckley and Bosworth does not have an up-to-date local plan. Given that there is speculative development in Hinckley and Bosworth, will the Minister consider strengthening neighbourhood plans? We know that they deliver more housing, provide protections for people locally and have buy-in from communities, yet the council suffers without an up-to-date one.

[Matthew Pennycook]

The hon. Gentleman will know that we are leaving in place the protections on neighbourhood planning. He is mistaken if he is suggesting that we are skewing development towards rural areas. The proposed standard method, which we consulted on, significantly boosts expectations across city regions. Indeed, across mayoral combined authority areas, it would see targets grow by more than 30%. Local plans are the best way for communities to control development in their areas. I am sure that he will agree that Hinckley and Bosworth borough council needs an up-to-date local plan in place. Perhaps he can work with me to ensure that that is the case.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

Ministers briefed the media over a week ago about plans for local government reorganisation and devolution. When do the Government plan to set them before the House, so that Members representing areas across the country can take a view?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am not sure how that relates to planning reform, which is the subject of the question, but my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government will set out in due course how our plans for devolution will be taken forward.

[David Simmonds]

Apologies if there is confusion; I was expecting to come in on question 4. [Interruption.] I am glad to hear it.

Many areas of the country stand to lose millions of pounds from the scrapping of the rural services grant—one of many local government funding streams that are expected to change. When will our councils, and this House, know the full impact of the financial changes, so that any reorganisation, devolution, or changes to local plans and other council strategies can be delivered with full knowledge of the impact that the changes will have on councils’ on the ability to lead locally?

[Matthew Pennycook]

Full details of the provisional settlement will be set out in the coming weeks.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

4. What discussions she has had with local government representatives on potential future devolution agreements in Somerset.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damien Egan (Bristol North East) (Lab)]

11. What steps she plans to take to reform the leasehold system.

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)]

For far too many leaseholders, the reality of home ownership has fallen woefully short of the dream. Over the course of this Parliament, the Government are determined to honour the commitments made in our manifesto and to do what is necessary to finally bring the feudal leasehold system to an end. On 21 November, I made a written ministerial statement to update the House on the steps that the Government intend to take to implement the reforms to the leasehold system that are already in statue, and to progress the wider set of reforms that are necessary to end the system for good.

[Damien Egan]

I recently met people living on the redeveloped Blackberry Hill hospital site in Fishponds, and they told me about the excessive and unfair leasehold charges that they face from their property management company, FirstPort. What assurances can the Minister provide that this Government will, once and for all, free people from the leaseholder system and end the rip-off fees?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. The Government are acutely aware that far too many leaseholders across the country are routinely subject to unjustified permissions and administration fees, unreasonable or extortionate charges, and onerous conditions that are imposed with little or no consultation. That is not what home ownership should entail, and it is why we must bring the system to an end in this Parliament. As I set out in the written ministerial statement to which I referred earlier, the Government will act to protect leaseholders from abuse and poor service at the hands of unscrupulous managing agents, such as the ones my hon. Friend mentioned, by strengthening regulation in this area.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

May I thank the Minister for the answers that he has given me in this Chamber, and in a written answer at the end of October, on the plight of leaseholders who have extra apartment levels grafted on above the blocks in which they live? I appreciate that he does not want to alter the planning presumption in favour of granting permission to build add-on extra levels, but will he at least consider outlawing any attempt by freeholders to pass on the cost of botched extensions to the poor old leaseholders, who have suffered enough by having such extensions built over their heads in the first place?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. He will recognise—I know he does—that those types of developments are the result of the expansion of permitted development rights that was taken forward after 2013. There are issues with the quality of some of the works that have come through that stream. On the specific issue he raises, perhaps it might be a good idea if we sat down together. I will happily discuss with him how we can protect leaseholders from those types of variable service charge increases.

[Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)]

Battersea is home to a large number of leaseholders, many of whom have had to face astronomically high service charges from what we all know are unscrupulous management agents. I am very pleased that this Government will protect leaseholders, given that the last Government failed to do so, but is the Minister willing to meet me and some of my leaseholders so that he can share Labour’s plans to protect them?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. I am more than happy to sit down with her, or to join a call or meeting with leaseholders in her constituency, in order to discuss the Government’s plans to end the system in this Parliament. We fully appreciate the wish of leaseholders across the country for us to act with speed. As the ministerial statement sets out, we also have got to balance that with the need to get these reforms right. The serious and specific flaws that were left to us by the previous Government in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 are a warning about what happens when reform in this area is not done properly.

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

I welcome the Government’s commitment to continue our work to address issues with the current leasehold system. However, where we are building new towns, such as Sherford in my constituency, residents, like others in new builds, face council tax and service charges, with no likelihood of that changing. What plans does the Minister have to address the impact of service charges in new towns as part of leasehold reform?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I think the hon. Lady is referring to the pressures placed on residential freeholders as a result of some of the management estate charges that come through that route. There are provisions in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act to provide residential freeholders with additional protections, and we need to bring those measures into force. We also then need to look more widely at how we reduce the prevalence of private and mixed-tenure housing estates, which are the fundamental root of the problem.

[Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)]

12. What steps she is taking to further devolve powers to local communities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

15. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of service charges on residents in social housing.

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)]

The Government recognise the considerable financial strain that rising service charges are placing on leaseholders, including those whose landlord is a social housing provider. As the hon. Gentleman will know, variable service charges must, by law, be reasonable. Their reasonableness can already be challenged at the appropriate tribunal and the housing ombudsman can investigate complaints about the fairness of service charges made by shared owners, as well as tenants of social housing landlords, but the Government are exploring what more can be done to give leaseholders the protection that they need from unaffordable service charge increases.

[Mr Kohler]

Many leaseholders in my constituency live in properties where Clarion housing association is the freeholder. This year’s service charge is on average almost 50% higher than the original estimate and for some on the High Path estate it is over £1,000 more. Does the Minister agree that leaseholders deserve transparency, not shock bills? What more can be done to give the housing ombudsman the power to demand compensation payments?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that supplementary question and assure him that I share his deep concern about the pressure on the household budgets of shared owners in his constituency, and others across the country, as a result of rising variable service charges. In addition to the routes to redress I have just set out, I draw his and the House’s attention to the measures in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 that are designed to drive up the transparency of service charges to make them more easily challengeable if leaseholders consider them unreasonable. Further detail about our plan to bring those and other provisions in the Act into force can be found in the written ministerial statement made on 21 November.

[Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)]

As the Minister will know, social housing providers and councils operate within a regulated service charge regime that does not allow them to make a profit, and the Housing Ombudsman Service is there for any complaints. Will the Minister consider bringing in a similar regime for the private sector?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I have set out the routes to redress that are already available and our intention to switch on the measures in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act, but I am more than happy to sit down and have a conversation with my hon. Friend about what more protection leaseholders in this space require.

[Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)]

17. What steps her Department is taking to allocate local growth funding according to need.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)]

T5. Given that the Government are already doing another relaunch, would the Secretary of State reconsider the fairness of housing targets, whereby poor delivery by Labour in London is awarded with lower targets to the detriment of areas such as South West Hertfordshire?

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not hear my previous response. The proposed new standard method, which we consulted on, significantly boosts expectations across our city regions. In mayoral combined authority areas, it would see targets grow by more than 30%, matching the ambition of our local leaders.

[Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)]

T4. The Government are consulting on the future of pan-regional partnerships such as our own Great South-West, which covers Cornwall, Devon, Somerset and Dorset. Businesses I speak to value the ability of our regions to speak with one voice on economic issues to Government and to investors, which are important for our region. Would the Minister meet me and businesses to discuss the future of PRPs?

--- Later in debate ---

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

T6. The overheated housing market in York is being fuelled by the 2,193 short-term holiday lets in the city. I have a private Member’s Bill on the subject, so will the Minister work with me as I co-produce the Bill to address this problem in York?

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend and I have discussed this matter many times. She is well aware of the Government’s approach to tackling excessive concentrations of short-term lets and second homes. I am of course more than happy to discuss the issue with her again in the future.

[Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)]

Most parties in this House, representing a collective total of 500 MPs, agree that first past the post is damaging trust in politics, and 64% of the public would like to see change. Does the Secretary of State agree that a national commission for electoral reform could address that, as recommended by the all-party parliamentary group?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

Councils up and down the land, but particularly in the south-east of England, are frustrated by the high levels of undeveloped consents. It is perfectly possible that the Secretary of State will find that, come the next election, her target has been consented but is nowhere near built. Will she consider allowing councils to have a 10-year housing supply number that includes undeveloped consents, so that when the number is reached, developers have no choice but to build?

[Matthew Pennycook]

We took steps, in the proposed reforms to the consultation on the national planning policy framework, to encourage build-out—not least through encouraging mixed-use development. However, we are reflecting on what more can be done to encourage that and to ensure that sites are built out in a timely manner.

[Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

T9. I have a constituent—a young, pregnant woman —who was recently released from hospital and housed in a local hotel that was contracted to house the homeless. She was petrified from the first night. She slept badly because men were banging on her door all night, and she was surrounded by drug use. She felt safer sleeping rough on the second night. Too many of my vulnerable constituents in Stoke-on-Trent South are being housed in accommodation that does not cater to their complex needs. Will the Minister update the House on his work to end the practice of shifting homeless constituents from one area to another to be housed in totally inappropriate—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

I welcome the Government’s commitments, in response to my written parliamentary questions, to a consultation on ending fleecehold. However, my constituents in Markhams Close and across Basildon and Billericay just want to know when that will take place.

[Matthew Pennycook]

As I set out in response to a previous question, we will consult on how to end the prevalence of new fleecehold estates, and we will, in the short term, ensure that residents on existing estates have the protections they need against unfair management charges.

[Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)]

I am delighted that the Government’s Mayoral Council is handing back powers to local communities. We are already seeing the impact of that. Claire Ward, the Mayor of the east midlands, attended the first meeting in October. She is leading the way: the east midlands is one of the youth trailblazer regions granted £5 million of Government funding to help young people into work or training. What work are Ministers doing to give those who contribute to our country a say in how it is governed?

[Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)]

There is growing concern among constituents that planning decisions are being swept aside because of the Government’s new planning reforms. What assurance can the Minister give that there will be meaningful engagement between constituents and their local planning authority, and that decisions will be respected?

[Matthew Pennycook]

As I have said, the best way to shape development in any given area is to have an up-to-date local plan in place. Where such plans are not in place, local authorities leave themselves open to the presumption in favour of sustainable development, and to development via appeal, so I encourage the hon. Gentleman to ensure that his local authority has an up-to-date plan in place. That is the best way for residents to have control. We want more resident engagement upstream in those local plans.

[Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)]

In five years, the cost of West Sussex county council’s Oracle upgrade has risen from £2.6 million to £28 million. Is that the kind of contract mismanagement that the Office for Local Government can look into?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

Labour’s housing targets desperately need reform to take into account land availability around protected landscapes. The Government have said that the answer is the costly planning appeals system. Does the Minister think that is a good use of taxpayers’ money?

[Matthew Pennycook]

Local plans have to go through examination for a determination of whether they are sound. Hard constraints, such as the type that the hon. Gentleman has just mentioned, will be taken into account when those plans are tested, even under the new framework.

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

The Government’s commitment to build more affordable homes is both welcome and urgent. However, we also need to ensure that registered providers are willing and able to take on section 106 affordable homes when they are built. In recent years, a combination of factors has meant that too many homes stand empty. Will my hon. Friend say what steps can be taken to tackle the section 106 standing stock scandal?

[Matthew Pennycook]

We recognise that this is a growing problem across the country that is having a severe impact on affordable housing supply. My hon. Friend will not have to wait long to find out what the Government propose to do to bear down on this problem.

[Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)]

The proposed planning reforms mean that towns such as Tring will see up to 40% more housing built on the green belt. What assurances can the Minister give that sacrificing that countryside will not have a negative impact on the community, and that we will have infrastructure before the occupation of homes and truly affordable homes for people in the local community?

[Matthew Pennycook]

We want to put in place a planning system that is geared towards meeting housing need in full. That is a clear difference between us and the Conservative party. In bringing forward its local plan and looking at development, every local area should look first at densification—that is, what it can do on brownfield land. It should only have to review green-belt land if it cannot meet the needs in that way or via cross-boundary strategic planning.

[Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)]

Last week, my local council announced the proposed closure of the much-loved Prince of Wales theatre in Cannock. Despite the council’s financial pressures, local people do not want that theatre to become collateral damage. Will the Minister meet me to see what could be done to explore community ownership and give our theatre the bright future that thousands of my constituents want to see?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

I represent Tunbridge Wells, and just over the boundary in Wealden district, a large housing development is proposed. Wealden will get the houses, but the infrastructure burden will fall particularly on my constituents who live in Tunbridge Wells. Will the Secretary of State update me on the reforms to the NPPF? What is being done about this problem of cross-boundary infrastructure?

[Matthew Pennycook]

In the NPPF, we set out the clear direction of travel towards the universal coverage of strategic planning across the whole of England. We had an Adjournment debate on that just last week. We are determined to put in place the mechanisms that will allow effective cross-boundary co-operation to ensure that the right infrastructure and housing growth takes place.

Cross-Boundary Housing Developments

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Thursday 28th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)]

Having not had the chance to do so personally, may I begin by welcoming the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) to his place?

I think it is fair to say that the important issue of cross-boundary planning co-operation has received far too little attention in this place over recent years, and I therefore very much welcome the hon. Gentleman giving the House an opportunity to consider it in some detail. I also appreciate the clarity with which he set out his position on the matter. He will know that the eight Leicestershire authorities are at different stages of plan preparation, having delayed due to further work addressing Leicester city’s unmet need.

Owing to the Secretary of State’s quasi-judicial role in the planning system, I am unable to comment on the details of specific local plans or specific local applications, but the points that the hon. Gentleman has made are on the record and I would expect him to make written representations to the Department in the appropriate way on some of the specific concerns that he has raised.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the nine local authorities in Leicester and Leicestershire voluntarily came together to collaborate on the publication of a non-statutory strategic growth plan in 2018. That plan provides a high-level vision for the sub-region up to 2050, setting out its housing and economic development needs, and focusing growth on key strategic areas.

Key to securing cross-party political support for voluntary collaboration along those lines has been the commendable desire to address the negative impacts of ad hoc, speculative development and to stimulate infrastructure investment to support growth. But equally vital has been a shared understanding of the obvious functional geography of a sub-region with a city at its heart, strong pre-existing relationships at member and officer level, and clear governance structures that are independent of any one authority.

While the partnership arrangements in Leicestershire took a not insignificant amount of time to establish, and to the best of my understanding nearly collapsed several times, they aptly demonstrate that local planning authorities can, and already do, work together informally to deal with cross-boundary and cumulative matters. Notwithstanding the concerns that the hon. Gentleman raised, Leicestershire is a rare example of relatively successful cross-boundary co-operation in a planning system whose incentive structure is not geared towards facilitating it. The Government have inherited a planning system in which, outside London, some metro mayors have spatial planning powers while others have only the power to prepare non-statutory plans. A lack of effective levers, whether that be governance arrangements that require unanimity or an inability to set the strategic direction for where new affordable housing should be delivered, prevents mayors who do have spatial planning powers from realising the full potential of those powers.

In the rest of the country there is a duty to co-operate, as the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) mentioned. The requirement provides a minimum standard for cross-border strategic planning, but by common consensus has not proved to an effective mechanism for fostering the kind of deep strategic co-operation that enables areas to meet their cross-border challenges and unmet local need to be shared with adjacent authorities. The Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 includes provisions that enable local authorities to come together to produce joint spatial development strategies, but as that is entirely discretionary and the current incentives are weak, there is no evidence that scores of areas eagerly await the opportunity to take that particular approach.

The result is a planning system that currently lacks any effective mechanisms for cross-boundary strategic planning. That has not always been the case. Indeed, planning for housing growth and infrastructure at a larger than local scale has been integral to the functioning of England’s planning system for most of the past half-century, whether through county structure plans, regional planning guidance or the comprehensive system of regional strategic planning introduced by the last Labour Government, including regional spatial strategies. The period since that architecture was abolished by the coalition Government in 2011 has been something of an aberration, with the duty to co-operate ostensibly facilitating necessary strategic cross-boundary planning, but in practice failing to do so in any meaningful way.

The result has been large parts of England where no strategic planning activity takes place, a number of notable local plan failures, increased delays in local plan production, growing public antagonism towards the planning system, and a yawning gap between the amount of development that the country needs and what is actually being built. The Government are committed to bringing that sub-optimal situation to an end by first, in the short term, strengthening the existing national planning policy framework requirements on effective co-operation, and then introducing effective new mechanisms for cross-boundary strategic planning through legislation, with a view to implementing a universal system of strategic planning in this Parliament.

Let me make it clear that we do not intend to return to the pre-2011 regional planning regime; rather, we will look at how we can ensure that effective cross-boundary co-operation—the kind that I take it the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire wants to see in his constituency—is taking place at a sub-regional level. While it is still too early to be definitive about the precise model, the Government are attracted to the spatial development strategy, which is well established in London, with the London plan having been produced and continually reviewed over a 20-year period by successive London Mayors. Whatever model is ultimately selected, it is important to note that strategic plans are not big local plans. Nor should the forthcoming introduction of statutory strategic planning arrangements be taken by local planning authorities as a reason not to progress the development of their local plans.

Local plans are the best way for communities to shape future development in their areas. The Government are determined to progress toward our ambition of universal local plan coverage, and we intend to drive local plans to adoption as quickly as possible. In all areas, strategic sub-regional plans will guide development for the local planning authorities in the area, and local plans will need to be in general conformity with them. We will expect local plans to be updated or developed alongside the strategic planning process, and we envisage that that process is where those larger than local level questions and negotiations about large-scale housing growth will be determined.

Given that the hon. Gentleman’s constituency spans three local authorities, I know he will take an active interest in the Government’s plans. Local authorities in Leicester and Leicestershire have shown what can be achieved through the voluntary production of a non-statutory strategic growth plan. I note that they have been working effectively on their local plans, including various local authorities meeting unmet needs from Leicester city.

However, the experience of the partnership arrangements being in place in the county also highlights the risks and limitations of voluntarism. I hope the intention to require statutory strategic planning arrangements to be put in place across England will be welcomed by the authorities that lie within the boundaries of Mid Leicestershire as a means of more quickly and effectively resolving cross-boundary and cumulative issues of the kind the hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to. On that note, I look forward to further discussions with him and other hon. Members as the Government take forward their plans in this area.

Question put and agreed to.

Veterans’ Access to Social Housing

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Wednesday 27th November 2024 Written Statements

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)]

As we set out in our manifesto and the Prime Minister reiterated in his conference speech on 24 September, this Government are committed to supporting our armed forces communities and ensuring veterans have access to the housing support they need.

To honour that commitment and facilitate access to social housing for veterans, I am today laying regulations to exempt all former members of the regular armed forces from any local connection tests for social housing applied by local councils in England.

Having a connection to an area should not be a barrier to housing for those who put their lives on the line for our country.

The regulations laid today will ensure that no veteran of the regular armed forces will need to meet a local connection test for social housing regardless of when they last served.

The Deputy Prime Minister has already written to local councils to remind them of the guidance and flexibilities to facilitate access of veterans to social housing.

Statutory guidance will be updated to reflect these changes. This includes specific guidance on improving access to social housing for members of the armed forces with examples of ways in which councils can ensure that service personnel and their families are given appropriate priority for social housing. We know that councils use the flexibilities available to them, but we must ensure that no veteran is unfairly penalised.

In addition to these measures, the Government have committed a further £3.5 million to the reducing veteran homelessness programme. This includes Op FORTITUDE, the single referral pathway for veterans at risk of, or experiencing, homelessness.

We will continue to work with the sector to deliver affordable homes to meet the needs of veterans as part of our broader commitment to deliver the biggest increase in social and affordable house building in a generation, and in the development of our long-term housing strategy.

Veterans represent the very best of our country. The Government are committed to honouring their sacrifices and ensuring homes will be there for heroes across the UK.

[HCWS255]

Older People's Housing Taskforce

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Tuesday 26th November 2024 Written Statements

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)]

The Government have today published the report of the older people’s housing taskforce. Copies will also be deposited in the House Library.

Concluding in May 2024, the older people’s housing taskforce undertook an assessment of public and private specialised and supported older people’s housing, with a particular focus on the private market for those on middle incomes, and explored options for the provision of greater choice, quality and security of housing for older people. There is rightly significant national interest in the taskforce’s findings.

I would like to offer my sincere thanks to the chair of the taskforce, Professor Julienne Meyer, and all its members for producing such a comprehensive, detailed and well-researched report. I would also like to express my gratitude to the many stakeholders who contributed to the work of the taskforce.

The Government recognise the importance of increased supply and improving the housing options for older people in later life, and we will give careful consideration to the many recommendations set out in the report.

Providing a range of safe, suitable housing for older people in later life helps them live independently, safely and well, for longer. It can enhance the wellbeing of our senior citizens and reduce demand on adult social care services and the national health service. The Government have committed to building 1.5 million new homes over the next five years, including those to meet the needs of older people, and we will consider this issue further as we develop our long-term housing strategy.

We are determined to create a more diverse housing market; one that delivers homes quickly and responds to the needs of a range of communities. Through the recent consultation on proposed reforms to the national planning policy framework, we tested proposals to promote the delivery of mixed-use sites, including housing designed for specific groups such as older people. We have also indicated our intention to consider further planning policy changes in the future as we move to produce a more streamlined and accessible suite of policies, and we will ensure that considerations around older people’s housing inform our approach.

We are also working with the Planning Advisory Service to meet the recommendation of the taskforce for guidance to provide more clarity on how planning use classes apply to specialist older people’s housing.

As the report also makes clear, older people’s housing has not been immune to the challenges faced by other residential leaseholders across the country. The Government remain fully committed to providing homeowners with greater rights, powers and protections over their homes by quickly implementing the provisions of the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024.

We will also take further steps over the Parliament to bring the feudal leasehold system to an end, including reinvigorating commonhold by modernising the legal framework as well as restricting the sale of new leasehold flats. We will consult on the best way to achieve this, and consider the needs of all parts of the housing market as we do this, including older people’s housing.

The Government are committed to helping older people to live comfortably and independently at home for as long as possible. The Minister for Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberafan Maesteg (Stephen Kinnock), and I thank the taskforce for their important contribution to this agenda.

[HCWS249]

Leasehold and Commonhold Reform

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Thursday 21st November 2024 Written Statements

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)]

Millions of homeowners across the country will remember with fondness the sense of satisfaction, pride and security they felt when completing the purchase of their first home. Given a free choice, an overwhelming majority of families would prefer to own their own home, and home ownership remains indelibly associated in the minds of many with security, control, freedom and hope.

Yet, for far too many leaseholders, the reality of home ownership has fallen woefully short of the dream—their lives marked by an intermittent, if not constant, struggle with punitive and escalating ground rents; unjustified permissions and administration fees; unreasonable or extortionate charges; and onerous conditions imposed with little or no consultation. This is not what home ownership should entail.

Over the course of this Parliament, the Government are determined to honour the commitments made in our manifesto and do what is necessary to finally bring the feudal leasehold system to an end. Given that millions of leaseholders and residential freeholders are currently suffering as a result of unfair and unreasonable practices, we appreciate fully the need to act urgently to provide them with relief. However, we are also cognisant of the significant complexity of the task and the importance of taking the necessary time to ensure that reforms are watertight.

With both of these imperatives in mind, I am today updating the House on the steps the Government intend to take to implement those reforms to the leasehold system already in statute and to progress the wider set of reforms necessary to end the feudal leasehold system for good.

Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024

The previous Government’s Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 was passed in the wash-up period prior to the Dissolution of the last Parliament. In enacting only a select number of Law Commission recommendations relating to enfranchisement and the right to manage, the Act has rendered the process of holistic and coherent leasehold and commonhold reform more challenging.

However, while limited in nature, the Act did introduce a necessary set of reforms that will provide immediate relief to those leaseholders and residential freeholders subject to unfair and unreasonable practices. As set out in the King’s Speech, it is therefore the Government’s intention to act as quickly as possible to provide homeowners with greater rights, powers and protections over their homes by implementing its various provisions.

However, we must balance speed with care if we are to ensure that the measures brought into force are to the lasting benefit of leaseholders and residential freeholders. The risk of acting with undue haste is not merely a hypothetical one. On assuming office in July, the Deputy Prime Minister and I were informed that the 2024 Act contains a small number of specific but serious flaws which would prevent certain provisions from operating as intended and that need to be rectified via primary legislation.

These serious flaws include a loophole which means that the Act goes far beyond the intended reforms to valuation and that undermines the integrity of the amended scheme. In addition we must correct an omission that would deny tens of thousands of shared ownership leaseholders the right to extend their lease with their direct landlord, given that the providers in question do not have sufficiently long leases to grant 990-year extensions.

This Government will not make the same mistakes as the last when it comes to reforming what is, without question, an incredibly complicated area of property law. While we intend to continue to work at pace, we will take the time necessary to ensure the reforms we pass are fit for purpose.

That is not to say that progress has not already been made. A number of the Act’s provisions came into force on 24 July relating variously to legal costs associated with the remediation of unsafe buildings, the work of professional insolvency practitioners, and removing the remedy where homeowners risk losing their home entirely because of failure to pay an income-supporting rent charge after 40 days.

On 31 October, the Government activated further building safety measures. These help clarify that remediation contribution orders and remediation orders—which require developers and other relevant persons to pay for or fix defects—can be made in respect of interim measures, known as “relevant steps”, such as waking watches and simultaneous evacuation alarms. They also clarify that costs of alternative accommodation, when leaseholders have been displaced from their homes on building safety grounds, and expert reports, can be recovered through remediation contribution orders.

Commencing the remaining provisions in the Act will require an extensive programme of detailed secondary legislation. While we appreciate fully the scepticism that leaseholders feel about yet more consultations, in some cases they will be necessary to determine precisely how certain measures are to be implemented effectively. To our frustration, we will not be able to bring other important measures into force, including the new valuation process, until we have fixed the small number of specific but serious flaws in the 2024 Act through primary legislation. Switching on the Act in full will therefore take time, but it is important that we get it right if we are to avoid the mistakes made by the previous Government.

A good example of why appropriate secondary legislation must be prepared and scrutinised before even seemingly simple measures in the Act are commenced is section 49. This section provides for an increase in the non-residential floorspace limit for right to manage claims from 25% to 50%. This will broaden access to this right for a significant number of leaseholders by allowing those in mixed-use buildings where up to 50% of the floorspace is non-residential to make right to manage claims.

However, the way existing right to manage company voting rights operate means that in some buildings with higher percentages of non-residential floorspace, freeholders not leaseholders will be able to control the right to manage company with more votes. For this reason we must amend right to manage company voting rights via secondary legislation in parallel with commencing section 49. If we do not do so, and simply activate section 49, new claims for the right to manage could result in these companies being set up only for the building’s existing freeholders to have total control over them. This would be contrary to the intention behind the Act. While we appreciate that leaseholders will be frustrated at having to wait for secondary legislation, this Government will not commence the Act in a half-baked or incoherent way that could risk detriment to leaseholders.

With a view to effectively implementing the Act as quickly as possible, the Government’s intended sequencing for bringing the provisions of the 2024 Act into force is as follows.

We intend to commence the Act’s provision to remove the two-year rule in January next year. This will mean that leaseholders will no longer have to wait two years after purchasing their property before exercising rights to extend their lease or buy their freehold, giving more leaseholders control over their properties from the outset.

We will bring the Act’s right to manage provisions —expanding access and reforming its costs and voting rights—into force as a coherent package at the same time, in spring 2025, meaning more leaseholders in mixed-use buildings can take over management from their freeholders, and leaseholders making claims will, in most cases, no longer have to pay their freeholder’s costs.

We understand that for many leaseholders the cost of living will be their primary immediate worry. For too long, leaseholders have borne the brunt of opaque and excessive costs being passed on to them. We will go out to consultation very shortly on the detail of the Act’s ban on buildings insurance remuneration such as commissions for landlords, property managing agents and freeholders being charged through the service charge and their replacement with transparent and fair fees.

Next year, we will look to consult on the Act’s provisions on service charges and on legal costs, bringing these measures into force as quickly as possible thereafter. Once implemented, leaseholders will be able to more easily challenge service charges they consider unreasonable and landlords will be required to apply to the relevant court or tribunal for approval before they can pass legal costs from such challenges back to leaseholders.

The Act includes measures that will make it cheaper for leaseholders to enfranchise—buy their freehold or extend their lease—giving them security over their property in the long term. Next summer we will consult on the valuation rates used to calculate the cost of enfranchisement premiums. Parliament will then need to approve the secondary legislation that sets out the detail, as well as fixing the Act’s serious flaws in further primary legislation, before implementing the package.

The Government remain committed to protecting residential freeholders on private and mixed-tenure housing estates from unfair charges. Next year we will consult on implementing the Act’s new consumer protection provisions for the up to 1.75 million homes that are subject to these charges, and bring these measures into force as quickly as possible thereafter. These include ensuring that homeowners who pay an estate management charge have better access to information they need to understand what they are paying for, the right to challenge the reasonableness at the first-tier tribunal (in England), and to go to the tribunal to appoint a substitute manager.

It is important that landlords, agents and other key actors in the sector are aware of their responsibilities. As such, we will continue to work closely with delivery partners and stakeholders as we implement the Act, and look to future reform. We also look forward to working closely with the Welsh Government to bring about these much-needed reforms across England and Wales.

It is also vital that as many residential leaseholders and freeholders understand and take advantage of the reforms as they are implemented. The Leasehold Advisory Service will have a crucial role to play in that regard and we will set out further detail in due course about how we believe it can most effectively do so.

Further reform of the leasehold system

While we must fix the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act and implement its provisions as soon as possible, we have always been clear that the Act does not go far enough. It overlooked a number of Law Commission recommendations relating to leasehold enfranchisement, enacted only eight relating to the right to manage and contained none relating to commonhold.

Moreover, it left untouched serious problems such as unregulated and unaffordable ground rents; the poor quality of service provided by some managing agents; the threat of forfeiture as a means of ensuring compliance with a lease agreement; and the prevalence of “fleecehold” private and mixed-tenure housing estates.

As part of our commitment to finally bring the feudal leasehold system to an end in this Parliament, the Government are determined to take action to address Law Commission recommendations omitted from the 2024 Act, to resolve a range of problems that legislation failed to grapple with, and to enact key pledges in our manifesto that it did not even engage with, such as making commonhold the default tenure.

In the King’s Speech, the Government made clear we would publish an ambitious new draft Leasehold and Commonhold Reform Bill in this parliamentary Session that would be subject to broad consultation and additional parliamentary scrutiny. Our intention is that it will be published in the second half of next year.

A central focus of the Bill will be reinvigorating commonhold through the introduction of a comprehensive new legal framework. To set out our thinking in advance of the Bill and invite consultation and discussion about how we finally transition away from leasehold, we will publish a White Paper on reforms to commonhold early next year.

Alongside setting out our plans for a comprehensive new legal framework for commonhold, we will take decisive first steps to making commonhold the default tenure by the end of the Parliament. To that end, we will consult next year on the best approach to banning new leasehold flats so this can work effectively alongside a robust ban on leasehold houses. We will seek input from industry and consumers on other fundamental points such as potential exemptions for legitimate use and how to minimise disruption to housing supply. We will also engage on the conversion of existing flats to commonhold.

The draft Bill will also consider a number of vital reforms to the existing leasehold system. The Government remain firmly committed to its manifesto commitment to tackle unregulated and unaffordable ground rents, and we will deliver this in legislation. We will remove the disproportionate and draconian threat of forfeiture as a means of ensuring compliance with a lease agreement. And we will consult on new reforms to the section 20 “major works” procedure that leaseholders must go through when they face large bills for such works.

We also intend to act to protect leaseholders from abuse and poor service at the hands of unscrupulous managing agents. The previous Government committed to regulate the property agent sector in 2018, even asking a working group chaired by the esteemed Lord Best to advise them how to do it. Yet, over multiple years they failed to take any action.

Managing agents play a key role in the maintenance of multi-occupancy buildings and freehold estates, and their importance will only increase as we transition toward a commonhold future, and so we are looking again at Lord Best’s 2019 report on regulating the property agent sector, particularly in light of the recommendations in the final Grenfell inquiry report. As part of our response to that report, I can confirm that we will strengthen regulation of managing agents to drive up the standard of their service. As a minimum, this should include mandatory professional qualifications which set a new basic standard that managing agents will be required to meet. We will consult on this matter next year.

Finally, we are determined to end the injustice of “fleecehold” entirely and we will consult next year on legislative and policy options to reduce the prevalence of private estate management arrangements, which are the root cause of the problems experienced by many residential freeholders.

[HCWS244]

Council Tax

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Thursday 14th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

(Urgent question): To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government if she will make a statement on the Government’s policy on council tax referendum thresholds in 2025-26.

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)]

Since the 2012-13 financial year, local authorities, fire authorities, and police and crime commissioners have been required to determine whether the amount of council tax they plan to raise is excessive. The Secretary of State sets thresholds on excessiveness and knows the referendum principles for different classes of authority. Since 2016-17, those thresholds have also included a social care precept, providing higher thresholds for authorities with social care responsibilities.

Decisions on the council tax levels to set, or whether to hold a referendum to go beyond the referendum principles, sit with councils. But the Government have been clear that we expect the threshold to be maintained at the current level, set by the previous Government. The Office for Budget Responsibility forecast of the last Government assumed that council tax would increase by a 3% core, plus an additional 2% for local authorities with adult social care responsibilities for the entirety of the forecast period. We will set out further details in the local government finance settlement in the new year.

Beyond that, we are determined to support local government and undo the mess that has been created over the past 14 years. That is why at the Budget we announced over £4 billion in new local government funding, including an additional £1.3 billion in the local government finance settlement. That, as the hon. Gentleman will be well aware, has been warmly welcomed by the sector.

[David Simmonds]

Council tax funds about £20.5 billion of expenditure in England on social care, which is 61% of all council funding. It is therefore of huge interest to our constituents. The Prime Minister and Ministers have repeatedly told the House that we need to wait for the spending review and the local government finance settlement to know what will happen with the referendum limit, including at the Dispatch Box yesterday when the Prime Minister told my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition to wait. Shortly afterwards, the press were told that the 5% limit would remain in place.

Answers to parliamentary questions show that the Government are expecting spending power to increase by £3.7 billion, funded by grants of £1.3 billion. That demonstrates that the Chancellor’s Budget has opened up a £2.4 billion black hole in council finances. In addition to that, the County Councils Network has highlighted its concerns that although we have not yet had a formal statement in the House, there are proposals to change the way in which funding is allocated, further depriving local authorities in urban, suburban and rural areas of the funding that they need.

I would like to put two questions to the Minister. First, will he promise the House that funding allocations through the grant mechanism will follow the cost pressures on local authorities and not any other form of indexation or formula, to ensure that places facing the highest costs receive the funding that they need? Next, while nobody would want to see the referendum limits scrapped simply to bail out central Government, the announcement of the 5% constrains local authorities when it comes to their fundraising. Will the Minister tell the House whether it will be our high streets through increased business rates or whether significant cuts to other council services will be needed to fill the Government’s £2.4 billion black hole?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions. Let me take them in turn. The Government are committed to a fair funding settlement for local government. We will set out further details in the usual way in the upcoming local government finance settlement, which will be presented to Parliament.

On the £2.4 billion figure, I am afraid that we simply do not recognise it. I assume that the hon. Gentleman, in his calculations, failed to take account of the over £300 million raised from business rates and £300 million in additional new houses coming along. Yes, it is right that £1.8 billion will be raised through council tax in 2025-26, but, as I made clear, that is because the Government are clear that we are maintaining the previous Government’s policy on council tax, in line with the OBR forecast made in March 2024.

The question for the Opposition is: are they saying that the cap should be abolished, as the Conservative Local Government Association group’s “Rebuilding the Road to Victory” document called for all caps to be removed, or are they saying that the limit should be reduced, which would be contrary to the policy in place when the now Leader of the Opposition was the local government Minister?

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee.

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is worth remembering why a number of our local authorities are facing this decision and the tight financial situation: the funding crisis over the past 14 years, forcing a number of local authorities to make those difficult decisions. A number of our areas are facing major in-year cost pressures from things such as temporary accommodation and special educational needs and disabilities provision. Does the Minister agree that we need to accelerate the house building plan in order to get local authorities back on a level playing field, so that our local residents do not see that cost increase in their council tax bills?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for that question. She is absolutely right; after 14 years of the previous Government’s record in office, local government is on its knees. We have a system on the verge of collapse. We had multiple years when in-year spending pressures were ignored. The headroom that we have provided through the Budget—more than £4 billion in new local government funding, which I referenced earlier—will allow us to start to turn that system around and to get ahead of some of the challenges we are facing, whether the pressures on adult social care, children’s services or homelessness costs as a result of temporary accommodation. That is why our house building programme—within my specific remit of responsibility—and, in particular, the increase in social and affordable housing supply that we are committed to, is so important.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)]

The Liberal Democrats are deeply concerned that people are simply paying more council tax for fewer services. That is quite clearly the result of Conservative tax cuts and their failure to tackle social care. As a former council leader, I know that the burden on councils has increased to such an extent that they are forced to make impossible choices. The burden and the costs that councils of all colours have to shoulder as a result of the Conservative Government’s policies must be reviewed. Will the Minister ensure that councils do not have to close libraries, cut bus routes and reduce road repairs in order to meet the growing demands of the most vulnerable members of our community? Despite the announcement in the Budget, will the Minister recognise the LGA analysis that councils face a £6.9 billion shortfall because of inflation, increased wage demands and demand pressures on local services?

[Matthew Pennycook]

The Government certainly recognise the pressures on local authorities and the burdens placed on households as a result of 14 years in which local government was run down. We are determined to turn that situation around, as I have said, by providing the headroom that local authorities need to get ahead of some of the challenges that they have faced for many years. That is why the more than £4 billion in new local government funding announced at the Budget, including an additional £1.3 million in the local government finance settlement, has been so warmly welcomed. That brings the total real-terms increase in core spending to around 3.2%. We remain committed to the 5% referendum cap—we believe that is the right threshold. To protect the most vulnerable, we are also committed to the single-person discount and local council tax support schemes, under which, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, more than 8 million households do not pay a full council tax bill.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

I really do not know how the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), can stand there and talk about cuts and shortfalls with a straight face. We know where responsibility lies—and on the Lib Dem Benches as well. [Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank my hon. Friend for that point, and I will relay it to the Local Government Minister. On the general principle, we are determined to rebuild local government from the ground up. That is why we are providing multi-year funding settlements to councils and removing a number of ringfences, and are committed, as I said, to fair funding. On his general point about the Opposition, I completely agree. It reminds me of a phrase my nan used to use: “More front than Harrods,” she used to say. That is what Opposition Members have.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

Will the Minister rule out additional council tax bands being among any changes that the Government make?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I say to the right hon. Gentleman that we are not talking about council tax bands in this urgent question; we are talking about the thresholds that remain in place. We are committed to those thresholds. As I am sure you would expect, Mr Speaker, we will set out more details about the local government finance settlement at the appropriate point next year, in the usual way.

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

Areas like Hull city council were savaged by the previous Government when it came to funding—absolutely savaged, to the point where they were almost on their knees. Will my hon. Friend the Minister tell the House what the Government are doing for areas of high deprivation like Hull?

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The damage done to local government over the 14 years in which the Conservatives were in office is profound. We have inherited, as I said, a system on the verge of collapse. We are absolutely committed, as part of rebuilding that system from the ground up, to a fair funding settlement. As I say, the Minister for Local Government will announce more details in the upcoming local government finance settlement in the new year.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

Local authorities across the country will welcome multi-year settlements, so they can plan for the future. However, does the Minister have any plans whatever for a revaluation of properties, given that properties were originally valued back in 1992, when council tax began? The hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) and I produced a Select Committee report on what could be done to ensure that councils need not be strictly neutral in terms of finance, and could revalue properties to bring valuations up to date.

[Matthew Pennycook]

The hon. Gentleman tempts me to discuss the local government finance settlement ahead of it being formally presented to the House. I am afraid I cannot do that, but the Government have heard his point, and I will ensure that it is passed on to the Local Government Minister.

[Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)]

As a councillor, I saw 14 years of austerity and cuts to local government, and a 93% cut equivalent for my council in Medway. The opposition, the Medway Conservative group, recently stated that it would not only scrap the recent council tax cap, but introduce a local income tax on residents. Does the Minister agree that there needs to be consistency on this issue, whereas the Opposition’s approach is to say, in one case, “Scrap the cap,” and in another, “Keep it”?

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right and we still have not had an answer: we do not know the Opposition’s position on thresholds. [Interruption.] We are in government, as the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) chunters from a sedentary position, and we have confirmed that when it comes to thresholds, we intend to maintain the position as it was under the previous Government, and as baked into the Office for Budget Responsibility forecast for the spending period. The Opposition really do have to answer this question: are they saying that the thresholds should be removed or increased, or are they saying that they should be reduced and core services cut?

[Mr Speaker]

Unfortunately, it is not for the Opposition to answer the questions—they are in opposition.

[Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

The Chancellor and the International Monetary Fund are known to favour ending council tax and replacing it with a wider property tax. The Welsh Labour Government tried to revalue all the properties in Wales for council tax purposes. Can the Government rule out doing either of those things?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am not going to get into speculating about more fundamental reform of the council tax system. As I have in a number of my responses to this urgent question, the Government will set out their position on the thresholds, and on other matters in respect of the local government finance settlement, at the appropriate point early in the new year.

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

York is the lowest-funded unitary authority in the country, but has one of the highest costs of living. That puts real pressure on it. We are also among the poorest-funded for health, fire and police services. When the Minister looks at the funding formula for local government, will he look at the presumptions made, to ensure more equity in the way it is put together?

[Matthew Pennycook]

As I have said repeatedly— I commit to it again—we are determined to ensure that there is a fair funding settlement for local government, and as I have said, more details will be forthcoming in the settlement early next year.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

Labour used to say that it would freeze council tax. Can the Minister now confirm that its policy is actually to put council tax up because of the flawed, broken promise on national insurance?

[Matthew Pennycook]

No, that is not the case. We are maintaining the policy of the previous Government, which, as per the OBR forecast, estimated that £1.8 billion will be raised through council tax. The position of the Government is that it will maintain the thresholds. If the hon. Gentleman thinks differently, he should tell House what his position is on thresholds: should they be reduced or increased?

[Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am pleased about the support for first and second-tier councils and the commitment to fair funding, which will make a real difference in, for instance, Cornwall. However, in unitary authorities such as ours, where a great many services have been shared, larger town councils have had to step up and take the strain, but have not had the grants and other measures that have been available to those first and second-tier councils. Could the appropriate Minister meet me to discuss the position of larger town councils in Cornwall?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am more than happy to commit the Local Government Minister to a meeting with my hon. Friend.

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

During Prime Minister’s questions yesterday, the Government accepted that they were giving councils a maximum of £600 million, but the Local Government Association has said that there is £2.4 billion worth of pressure. Does the Minister accept that councils will have to increase their tax by about £1.8 billion to fill the gap between what the Government are offering them and what they need to provide local services?

[Matthew Pennycook]

As I have made clear, we do not recognise the £2.4 billion figure. It fails to take into account increases that I have already mentioned, such as the £300 million increase in business rates income and the £300 million increase in income from new, additional houses. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that we expect council tax to raise £1.8 billion in 2025-26, but that is in line with the previous Government’s spending plans and baked into the OBR forecast as of March 2024.

[Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)]

As a former deputy council leader, I am somewhat amazed by the collective amnesia of Conservative Members. The hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) spoke of what “constrains” local government spending power. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is 60% cuts, such as those that Southampton city council has suffered for 14 years, that have really reduced that spending power, and does he agree that rather than faux outrage, what we need is an apology?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. We deserve an apology, but I doubt that we will get one. Before 2010, it was vanishingly rare for councils to fall into serious financial difficulty. Since then, nine councils have been affected in just 14 years. There is a pattern here. For too long, the Conservative Government not only failed to carry out their duty to local government, but hollowed out frontline services and crashed the economy. We are turning that around with the support that we are providing to local government in the Budget. We will set out more details in the local government settlement early next year, as I have mentioned.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

As the Minister will know, although we do not have council tax per se in Northern Ireland, the pressures on our family finances are on a par with those on the UK mainland. The Government need to be clear about just how much further the finances of average families will be stretched, because this is a very worrying trend. What extra help can families, especially disabled families, expect to receive this year?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, which relates to an earlier one. I think that, in the urgent question, the Opposition failed to account for the various other sources of support that we are providing for families. We are continuing the household support fund—that is £1 billion. There is a £1 billion uplift for special educational needs. There is UK shared prosperity funding of £900 million—the list goes on, but if the hon. Gentleman wishes to discuss the specific conditions in Northern Ireland further, I am more than happy to pass on that request to the Local Government Minister.

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)]

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association; Opposition Front Benchers might want to reflect on that.

My hon. Friend mentioned front; I could talk about the Opposition’s brass neck in talking about concerns about the pressures that local councils face. Does he agree that 14 years of Conservative austerity, initially with the Liberal Democrats, devastated the ability of many councils, including Luton council, to provide much- needed services to families in our constituencies?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I have been a local councillor, as have many Members of this House. The hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) has been a council leader, so he will know what has happened to the system over the past 14 years. The Opposition continue to claim that there is a multibillion-pound black hole in local council budgets. When asked how they would fix it, however, they said, “It’s not for us to do; we’re in opposition. It’s for the Government.” It is a classic policy of having no plan to fix the mess. They have provided no clarity on their position on thresholds, and failed to take responsibility for what they did over 14 years in government.

[Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)]

My Conservative-controlled council in the London borough of Bexley had to apply for a capitalisation order three years ago and make 15% of our staff redundant. Despite that, it still overspent its budget every month for over two years, and is currently overspending on the safety valve agreement made with the previous Government. In addition, the Conservative leader of the council, in responding to a question from me last year, accepted that she was part of the LGA Conservative group executive that published a manifesto last year asking their own Government to remove caps on council tax. Given that, does my hon. Friend agree that it is rank hypocrisy for the Conservative party to complain now about black holes in council finances?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I absolutely do, and the Government are determined to extract from the Opposition some clarity on their position on thresholds. Do they agree with the LGA Conservative group, which has called for the caps on council tax to be removed? Do they want those caps to be reduced? We are still none the wiser. Hopefully, we can find out in the weeks and months to come.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

As a member of a council for more than 30 years—like other Members of this House, I am still one—I have to say that, in the last few years, I have not met a single councillor from any political party across the local government family who does not believe that local government finance is in its worst state for decades. The latest LGA figures indicate that in Labour authorities, council tax is £276 lower than in Conservative authorities. Does the Minister agree that this shows that Labour councils, the Labour party and the Labour Government provide better value for money?

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Labour councils charge less on average than Tory councils, and the councils with the lowest rates of council tax are all Labour. Council tax bills in Labour councils are on average £345 less than in Tory councils. When it comes to local government financing and council tax pressures, people are right to vote Labour. It will ensure that their council tax is lower than if they were under a Conservative local authority.

[Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)]

I am a former local government leader. Does the Minister agree that we should thank local authority leaders, especially Labour leaders such as Pete Marland at Milton Keynes city council, for keeping services during 14 years of austerity? Milton Keynes city council has kept weekly bin collections, kept children’s centres open and reduced rough sleeping, while keeping council tax lower than in its neighbouring Tory authorities. Does the Minister agree that instead of using local authority leaders to make cheap political points, the Conservative party should thank them and apologise for 14 years of austerity?

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I extend the Government’s appreciation to all local government leaders—I mean that in a cross-party spirit—for what they have done to keep services going despite the pressures that they have faced over the past 14 years, when the previous Government ran down local government. We should thank local government leaders, and this Government do. We want to consult them on how we rebuild the system after 14 years of pressure, and we would be more than happy to work across the Chamber and have a mature, cross-party conversation about we fix this mess. That will not happen if the political game-playing from the Opposition continues.

Housing Design and Quality

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Tuesday 12th November 2024 Written Statements

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)]

The Government are committed to building 1.5 million new homes over the next five years, but we have also been clear that increasing house building rates cannot mean units at any cost. We want exemplary development to be the norm not the exception so that more communities feel the benefits of new development and welcome it. As we act to boost housing supply, we are therefore determined to take steps to improve the design and quality of the homes and neighbourhoods being built.

These guiding principles are woven into the fabric of the reforms we have initiated over recent months. The new towns taskforce, for example, has been asked to ensure that quality and design are integral to its agenda, and it has been explicitly tasked with setting out clear principles and standards for new large-scale communities to ensure they are well-connected, sustainable, well-designed, and attractive. Our proposed reforms to the national planning policy framework also highlighted the Government’s ongoing commitment to well-designed homes and places, and retaining the objective of creating high-quality, beautiful, and sustainable buildings and places.

My Department intends to update the national design guide and national model design code in spring next year, and we will continue to bolster design skills and capacity through the £46 million package of capacity and capability support provided to local planning authorities. This will be used to fund the recruitment and training of 300 graduate and apprentice planners, along with the £1 million funding to public practice for the recruitment of planners, architects and urban designers.

Together, this framework provides a clear basis for the delivery of more high-quality, well-designed homes. To help support this delivery, in particular as we progress our consideration of large-scale sites and large-scale new communities, I intend to establish quarterly steering boards on design and placemaking, ensuring that our work is guided by those with relevant professional and practical expertise.

It was announced in July 2023 that the Office for Place, previously a small team in the then Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, would become an arm’s length body to be based in Stoke-on-Trent. Work to establish the Office has continued since then. I would like to offer my sincere thanks to the interim board, led by Nicholas Boys Smith as chair, and the Office for Place team for their exemplary work on this important issue. In putting design and quality at the heart of the housing supply agenda and establishing the principles of design coding and embedding them in practice across the planning and development sectors, Nicholas and the team have made a significant contribution.

Alongside spending decisions taken at the Budget and the re-setting of departmental budgets, the Deputy Prime Minister and I have, however, concluded that support to improve the quality and design of new homes and places can be more efficiently and effectively delivered by the Department itself. The Office for Place will therefore be closed down and the expertise of its staff redeployed within the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government, across the country. I would like to reassure the House that this will not impact on wider Government commitments to Stoke-on-Trent, including the award of £19.8 million for their levelling up partnerships programme.

In taking the decision to wind up the Office for Place, the Government are not downgrading the importance of good design and placemaking, or the role of design coding in improving the quality of development. Rather, by drawing expertise and responsibility back into MHCLG, I want the pursuit of good design and placemaking to be a fully integrated consideration as the Government reform the planning system, roll out digital local plans and provide support to local authorities and strategic planning authorities. I also believe that embedding this work within MHCLG will allow experience to be better reflected in decision-making, as well as integrated within an existing delivery team in Homes England already focused on design and placemaking.

It will also ensure continuity of current Office for Place key activities, including support for pathfinder authorities who received a share of £1 million to produce exemplar design codes, alongside work on digital design codes and funding to support local and regional urban design best practice and skills.

The Government regard improving the design and quality of the homes and neighbourhoods we will build over the coming years as conducive to, rather than in tension with, our ambition to significantly increase housing supply, and we have put in place the necessary policy and delivery framework to ensure we deliver on both objectives.

[HCWS209]

Renters' Rights Bill (Eighth sitting)

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 5th November 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I add the support of the Liberal Democrats for the intent of the new clause. Clearly, tenants should not be penalised for having to move frequently, and we are interested in the Minister’s response on the subject.

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Roger. I thank the hon. Member for Bristol Central for moving the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), and I thank the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington for their contributions.

The Government absolutely agree that unwanted private rental moves are not only stressful but extremely expensive in terms of both the unrecoverable costs associated with moving home and the significant up-front costs of moving into a new property, including tenancy deposits. That is why one of the Bill’s main objectives is to remove the threat of arbitrary evictions and increase tenant security.

Under the new tenancy system a small proportion of tenants will still find themselves evicted through no fault of their own in circumstances where the landlord has good reason to regain possession of the property—for example, if the landlord or a close family member wishes to live in it as their only or principal home. I therefore recognise the worthy intentions behind the new clause—namely, to ensure that tenants’ credit scores are not adversely affected by unwanted moves resulting from the use of such possession grounds.

However, I am not convinced that the new clause, which would require the FCA to issue guidance on how possession orders specifically should be reflected in an individual’s credit score, is necessary, because tenants’ credit scores are not adversely affected by evictions under ground 8 possessions. Credit reference agencies do not receive information about possession orders from the courts, and as a result possession orders are not recorded on people’s credit reports and do not negatively affect their credit scores.

I acknowledge that there is a distinct, but related, issue in respect of the impact on credit scores of changes of address in general, on which it is worth noting two things. First, the methodology that underpins credit scores is not uniform across different credit reference agencies. Experian, TransUnion and Equifax, for example, each have their own distinctive approaches to credit scores, including in how they reflect changes of address. Secondly, almost all lenders review a person’s credit report when assessing an application for credit, and a change of address would still be recorded on those reports.

Whether it is feasible and sensible to seek to have the FCA attempt to ensure that credit reference agencies treat moves resulting from the use of certain possession grounds set out in schedule 1 differently from changes of address more generally is an entirely valid question, albeit one somewhat distinct from that posed by the specific wording of the new clause. As things stand, I am not entirely convinced that it would be, but I will happily seek to ensure that Treasury Ministers engage directly with the FCA on this matter, including on the review cited by the hon. Member for Bristol Central. However, for the reasons I have stated, I will not be able to accept the new clause and ask the hon. Lady to withdraw it.

[Carla Denyer]

I and thank the Minister for his consideration and beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 2

Review of the impact of the Act on the housing market

“(1) The Secretary of State must publish an annual report outlining the impact of the provisions of this Act on the housing market in the UK.

(2) A report under this section must include the impact of this Act on—

(a) the availability of homes in the private rental sector;

(b) rents charged under tenancies;

(c) house prices; and

(d) requests for social housing.

(3) A report under this section must be laid before Parliament.”—(David Simmonds.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Just so that the Committee understands the procedure, because the new clauses are grouped, new clause 7 will not be moved now, but if the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington wishes to move it when we come to it, then he may do so without further debate.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am afraid I will have to resist all three new clauses. Although I will try to limit it, I fear that I may be somewhat repetitive in doing so, because the Government’s logic in each instance is similar.

As the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner has made clear, new clause 2 would introduce a legal requirement for the Government to publish an annual review of the impact of the Bill’s reforms on the availability of homes. In particular, it would require an assessment to be made on the availability of homes in the private rental sector, rents charged under tenancies, house prices and requests for social housing. As per our previous discussion, I recognise that the underlying rationale for the measure is an interest in the practical difference the legislation will make over the coming years. I reassure the Committee that this is an interest I share, which is why we are committed to robustly monitoring and evaluating the private rented sector reform programme introduced by the Bill.

I will not detail the Government’s general approach to monitoring and evaluation, but suffice it to say that we believe that setting an arbitrary deadline for the work in law—as the new clause would require—would be an unnecessary step, and there is a risk that it would detract from evaluation and prevent us from conducting as robust an assessment as possible. However, given the interest in the Bill’s impact, I wish to reassure the Committee that we do not expect the Bill to have a destabilising effect on the rental market. This Government value the contribution made by responsible landlords who provide quality homes to their tenants. We will continue to work with good landlords and their representative associations throughout implementation.

New clause 3 would introduce a legal requirement for the Government to appoint an independent person to prepare a report on the impact of the reforms to the tenancy system and the grounds for possession. We are committed to robustly monitoring and evaluating the impact of our reform programme in line with the Department’s evaluation strategy; however, setting an arbitrary deadline in law for that work is unnecessary and, again, may detract from the quality of evaluation and prevent us from conducting as robust an assessment as possible.

New clause 7, tabled by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, would introduce a legal requirement for the Government to publish a review of the extent to which the abolition of fixed terms and assured shorthold tenancies and the changes to leasehold covenants lead to landlords leaving the private rented sector to provide short-term lets within two years of the Bill passing. It is important to state that this Government value the contribution made by responsible landlords who provide quality homes to their tenants, and believe they must enjoy robust grounds for possession where there is good reason to take their property back. As such, good landlords have nothing to fear from our reforms and should be in no rush to change legitimate business models, as I have said repeatedly.

The private rented sector has doubled in size since the early 2000s. There is no evidence of an exodus since reform was put on the table by the previous Government. Our proposals will ensure that landlords have the confidence and support they need to continue to invest and operate in the sector.

[Mr Amos]

Will the Minister comment on whether, and how soon, the Government are likely to introduce a use class, which the previous Government committed to?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will come to the specific proposals under consideration for short-term lets and holiday lets. The use class was consulted on as one of a number of measures that the previous Government introduced. I will touch on that specific point shortly.

I will preface this with a point that I think all Committee members appreciate. The Government are very alive to the fact that there are many parts of the country—coastal, rural and some urban constituencies—where excessive concentrations of short-term lets and holiday homes are having detrimental impacts, not least on the ability of local people to buy their own homes or, in many cases now, rent their own homes. I have stated this on many occasions in the House since being appointed, but I will say it again: that is the reason why we will progress with abolishing the furnished holiday lets tax regime, and with the introduction of a registration scheme for short-term lets. That will give local authorities access to valuable data on them.

Those measures were committed to by the previous Government, and we will take them forward. However, as I said a number of times in the previous Parliament, we do not think they go far enough and we are considering what additional powers we might give to local authorities to enable them to better respond to the pressures they face as a result of the excessive concentrations of short-term lets and holiday homes. I hope to say more on that in due course.

In respect of this Bill, we are committed to robustly monitoring and evaluating the impact of our reform programme in line with the Government’s evaluation strategy. However, setting an arbitrary deadline in law for this work is unnecessary and may detract from our efforts in that regard. On that basis, I encourage Members not to press their new clauses.

[David Simmonds]

Given the Minister’s response, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 4

Assessment of operation of possession process

“(1) The Lord Chancellor must prepare an assessment of the operation of the process by which—

(a) on applications made by landlords, the county court is able to make orders for the possession of dwellings in England that are let under assured and regulated tenancies, and

(b) such orders are enforced.

(2) The Lord Chancellor must publish the assessment at such time, and in such manner, as the Lord Chancellor thinks appropriate.

(3) In this section—

‘assured tenancy’ means an assured tenancy within the meaning of the 1988 Act;

‘dwelling’ means a building or part of a building which is occupied or intended to be occupied as a separate dwelling;

‘regulated tenancy’ means a regulated tenancy within the meaning of the Rent Act 1977.”—(David Simmonds.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[David Simmonds]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

At risk of rehearsing the debate we have already had, the new clause seeks to address the assessment of the possessions process. In evidence to the Committee a degree of concern was expressed on the part of landlords that the backlog in the courts may make it difficult to secure possession when that is necessary. Governments of all parties, including the previous Government, have put in place measures seeking to address that. We know that they are beginning to bear fruit, but it is important in maintaining the confidence of landlords both to come to the market and to remain in the market that they know it is possible to secure a court hearing, should one be necessary to gain access to the property. The new clause seeks to ensure that an assessment of that process is carried out.

[Matthew Pennycook]

New clause 4 would require the Lord Chancellor to prepare an assessment of the operation of the process by which the county court is able to make possession orders for rented properties and by which such orders are enforced. The assessment would be published at such time and in such a manner as the Lord Chancellor saw fit.

Hon. Members who followed the debates in the last Parliament will recall that the previous Government introduced a similar clause to their own Renters (Reform) Bill in the late stages of that Bill’s progress, via a Government amendment, together with a clause that prevented the Secretary of State from laying regulations to bring tenancy reforms into force for existing tenancies until after the Lord Chancellor’s amendment had been published. This Government have been clear that we will not follow a similar approach. We do not consider it reasonable that the implementation of our reforms should be constrained by such an assessment, not least an assessment of the kind proposed in the new clause, which is extremely broad and undefined.

The hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner tabled amendment 64, which would delay commencement until the Lord Chancellor has carried out and published the proposed assessment. I reaffirm that we have no intention of delaying these urgent and necessary reforms while awaiting an unnecessary assessment of the possession process against what is an unspecific metric. We will instead move ahead with tenancy reform as quickly as possible, but in conjunction with an extensive parallel workstream with colleagues from the Ministry of Justice and His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service to ensure that the courts are ready at the point of implementation.

In any case, the assessment required by new clause 4 is entirely unnecessary and unhelpful, because data on the operation of possession proceedings for rented properties is already published by the Ministry of Justice on a quarterly basis, and will continue to be. Court rules specify that possession claims requiring a hearing should be listed between four weeks and eight weeks of receipt.

The Committee may be interested to know that figures for April to June 2024 show that claim to order median timeliness is 8.1 weeks, suggesting that—I am not necessarily attributing this to the shadow Minister—some of the more alarmist statements about the readiness of the county court system may have more to do with fundamental opposition to the abolition of section 21 and the current tenancy regime than they are an impartial assessment of court performance.

The proposed assessment would provide no obvious additional insight or benefit to any interested parties, in our view, and would merely detract from the vital work of the courts and tribunals by subjecting them to a nugatory additional process. All our focus is on ensuring that HMCTS is ready to stand up the new system at the point of commencement, and that should be our focus in the coming weeks and months. On that basis, I kindly ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his new clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Carla Denyer]

New clause 9 would head in the opposite direction from new clause 5. It is about removing unnecessary barriers to the use of licensing schemes to improve housing standards. The new clause would do two things. First, it would increase the maximum duration of discretionary licensing schemes from five years to 10. Secondly, it would enable local authorities operating selective licensing schemes to use licensing conditions to improve housing conditions.

Licensing can be an effective way to improve housing standards for at least three reasons. First, it is proactive. It provides a means for local authorities to inspect privately rented housing using enforceable conditions and to identify and resolve problems without the need for tenants to have complained, and it provides that proactive regulation in a locally tailored form. It makes major contributions to area-based issues such as crime, antisocial behaviour and waste management, and it brings together a range of bodies to focus additional support services—for example, for landlords and tenants, improving public health and reducing burdens on the NHS. There are a huge number of wins, and I have experienced that at first hand with licensing schemes in my local authority.

Secondly, licensing is self-funding. It means that the market pays for its own regulation, which is a good principle, rather than relying on the taxpayer. It provides a sustainable and predictable source of income that enables local authorities to maintain staffing levels and support the training of new officers.

Thirdly, licensing is targeted. It enables local authorities to target regulation where that is most needed, so that the worst landlords and the most vulnerable tenants get the most attention and landlord costs can be minimised in other areas.

The problem, however, is that local authorities have to implement licensing schemes with their hands tied behind their backs, because previous Governments have made various decisions that have placed unnecessary and irrational barriers in their way. Given that licensing schemes are expensive and time-consuming for local authorities to initially introduce, it does not make sense to restrict the period over which they can act to only five years.

New clause 9 would amend sections 60 and 84 of the Housing Act 2004 to increase the maximum duration of discretionary licensing schemes, which includes both selective licensing schemes and additional—sorry, jargon again—for HMOs from five to 10 years. That would allow local authorities to advertise for longer-term posts for officers and to include training of new staff in those schemes. It would also provide more time for local partnerships formed through such schemes to become embedded and effective.

The new clause also addresses another issue, which was highlighted by the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health during oral evidence. That respected body pointed out that it does not make any sense to have the current peculiar disconnect in the 2004 Act, whereby local authorities can introduce selective licensing schemes to address poor housing conditions, but they cannot include a directly enforceable requirement relating to the housing condition as a condition of the licence—so they do not have the tools to do what they are set up to do. The new clause would therefore amend section 90 of the 2004 Act to enable local authorities to use licence conditions to improve housing conditions directly.

I stress that the new clause does not cover all that needs to be done to remove barriers to licensing. For example, I also urge the Minister to commit the Government to removing the Secretary of State’s ability to veto selective licensing schemes covering more than 20% of the local authority area.

[Matthew Pennycook]

indicated assent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

As we have heard, new clause 5 seeks to abolish selective licensing. This would remove the ability of local authorities to set up a selective licensing scheme of any size in their area. In contrast, new clause 9 seeks to extend selective and additional licensing of houses in multiple occupation by allowing local authorities to increase the maximum duration of schemes from five to 10 years. It also seeks to allow local authorities to use licence conditions under selective licensing to improve housing conditions, as the hon. Member for Bristol Central made clear.

This Government support selective licensing. It allows local authorities to proactively and more intensively target specific issues in private rented properties, where it is needed most. That includes tackling poor housing conditions and antisocial behaviour. If we abolish selective licensing, local authorities will lose a crucial tool in taking effective enforcement action against landlords who flout the rules. However, I take the shadow Minister’s point, and I reiterate that it is important that the selective licensing system, and the system introduced by the Bill, operate effectively alongside each other. That is very much our intention.

However, we recognise that licensing imposes a burden on landlords. Correspondingly, we think a maximum duration of five years for discretionary licence schemes strikes the right balance for the following reasons. It gives local authorities time to realise improvements while ensuring that landlords are not by default subject to increased regulation for prolonged periods. Of course, licensing in any given area may be part of a longer-term strategy. That is why, where a scheme has expired and there is still a case for licensing, local authorities may simply introduce a new scheme to drive further improvements. The duration that the hon. Member for Bristol Central is seeking selective licensing schemes to cover can be achieved in any given local authority area, if the local authority simply extends matters through a new scheme. We think that a five-year timeframe gives an opportunity to review the effectiveness of individual discretionary licensing schemes and ensure that they are proportionate in achieving their aims.

The broad intention of the hon. Lady’s new clause is to improve housing conditions. Let me be clear again that every private renter, not just those in licensed properties, has the right to a good-quality home. That is why, through the Bill, we are introducing a decent homes standard and applying Awaab’s law to the sector to tackle the blight of poor-quality homes.

Our reforms will establish a level playing field across the sector, ensuring that all renters and local authorities, not just those in areas with licensing schemes, can challenge and enforce against dangerous conditions. I will not address the hon. Lady’s specific point on the Secretary of State’s veto, because it is somewhat outside the scope of the Bill, but I take that on board. On the chartered institute, I will say nothing more at this stage other than that we will continue to review the use of selective licensing as we develop the database and other measures in the Bill. On that basis, I ask the hon. Members not to press their new clauses.

[David Simmonds]

We remain a little concerned that where selective licensing schemes are in operation alongside the measures introduced by the legislation, a degree of ambiguity and potential confusion is created, especially for some landlords who may seek to evade responsibility. Two schemes of a similar nature will be in place, with potentially different fees and standards in operation. However, I accept the numbers on the Committee, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Carla Denyer]

I support new clause 8, and I would also like to speak in favour of new clause 14, tabled in the name of the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel). New clause 14 seeks to address an injustice around guarantors for students. In this speech, I cite heavily evidence provided by the National Union of Students and individual student union officers in my home city of Bristol, all of whom are very concerned about this injustice.

The widespread landlord practice of demanding that tenants provide a guarantor is discriminatory, especially in this situation. Tenants are asked to put someone forward, normally a parent or relative, who owns a house in the UK and/or earns an income typically above the national average. The guarantor is asked to guarantee to pay the rent should the tenant default, and to pay for any damage to the property should the tenant be unable to do so.

Although for some, this is just an inconvenience, for tenants who are from deprived socioeconomic backgrounds, who are estranged from their families, who have a background in care or who are coming to the UK, such as international students from abroad, it can be a huge barrier to securing a home. The practice can push those unable to find a suitable guarantor into unsustainable debt, because they are forced to pay either months of rent up front or for costly guarantor schemes run by private companies. Others are forced into hostels or sofa surfing, and can even be made homeless.

The stats are stark: 13% of students experience homelessness during their studies, and that figure rises to 29% for international students. This issue has a detrimental impact on the lives of student renters and their ability to focus on their studies. It is imperative that we address the issue to ensure fair and equitable access to housing for all tenants, including students, allowing them to flourish in their education.

Landlords have several other means available to protect themselves against potential losses, including tenant referencing, rent guarantee insurance and deposit protection schemes, all of which make guarantor schemes unnecessary. I am not pushing for a vote today, but I ask the Minister to have a dialogue—if he is not doing so already—with the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley, who tabled the new clause, and the NUS, with a view to including the changes in the next version of the Bill. Finally, I should mention that I have joined the all-party parliamentary group for students.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke for speaking to the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), whom I commend for her work in this area, not just in this Parliament but in the previous one. She has been prodigious in pursuing this issue on behalf of her constituents, and I have reflected further on the points that she made on Second Reading.

The Government agree that it is unacceptable for bereaved guarantors to be held liable for unpaid rent where the only reason for it is the sad death of a tenant. Guarantor arrangements are not usually intended to protect landlords against the risk of financial loss caused by the death of their tenant; rather, they are used by landlords to reduce the financial risk of letting to a tenant who, for example, may have no previous residency in the UK and consequently no references from former landlords, or who might not successfully pass credit checks.

Although we understand that few landlords would use guarantor agreements to pursue debts that occur after a tenant’s death, we do know that sadly some do. This is an unacceptable practice that compounds the grief that families face after unexpected bereavements. I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke will be reassured to hear that the Government have been considering this issue closely and in detail. We take it very seriously, and I am extremely sympathetic to the issues raised. I hope to be able to say more on Report about the matter and about the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood.

I thank the hon. Member for Bristol Central for speaking to new clause 14, tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel). I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his work on this issue, and for his engagement with me and on the Bill more generally. The Government understand that obtaining a guarantor may be difficult for some prospective tenants, and I absolutely sympathise with those who are in that situation. For some tenants, the requirement can, as the hon. Member for Bristol Central made clear, effectively block access to the private rented sector.

The Government are clear that landlords should consider a tenant’s individual circumstances when negotiating rental contracts. I have been concerned to hear anecdotally about some landlords insisting that all tenants provide a guarantor, regardless of individual circumstances. That said, and ever mindful of the unintended consequences of weighing in without thought, I am aware that the use of guarantors can give landlords confidence to provide tenancies to individuals who otherwise may struggle to gain accommodation. That might include those with a history of rent arrears or with no previous rental history, those who are moving out of home for the first time and foreign students. As such, I am concerned that the wording of the new clause may inadvertently make it harder for those tenants to find a place to live, despite the honourable intentions behind it.

I recognise the importance of getting the balance right between barriers and enablers to accessing the private rented sector. I will continue to engage with hon. Members more broadly and with wider stakeholders, but in particular with my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley, who has diligently pursued the matter. For the reasons I have given, however, I respectfully ask my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke to withdraw the new clause.

[Claire Hazelgrove]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 10

Home Adaptations

“(1) The Housing Act 1988 is amended as follows.

(2) After section 16 insert—

‘16A Home adaptations

(1) It is an implied term of every assured tenancy to which this section applies that a landlord shall give permission for adaptations where a local council has carried out a Home Assessment and recommends adaptations which constitute reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010. Tenants have the right to appeal a landlord’s refusal to adapt a property.

(2) This section applies to every assured tenancy other than a tenancy of social housing, within the meaning of Part 2 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008.’” —(Carla Denyer.)

This new clause would ensure that landlords give permission for home adaptations where a Home Assessment has been carried out.

Brought up, and read the First time.

--- Later in debate ---

I tabled the new clause in the spirit of debate and discussion, aware of how many disabled people are affected by poor-quality housing in the private rented sector. I know that the Minister cares about the issue, and I hope that he can speak to ways to dramatically improve the situation for the disabled people who need it.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I very much sympathise with the intent behind the new clause, but I am afraid I will have to disappoint the hon. Lady by saying that I do not think it is necessary, and I will set out why. The Government strongly agree that landlords should not unreasonably refuse disability adaptations. As she rightly says, there is already a requirement in law that they do not. The Equality Act 2010 provides that landlords cannot unreasonably refuse a request for reasonable adjustments to be made for the purposes of a disabled person using their home. Where consent has been sought and is refused, the burden is on the landlord to show why their refusal or any conditions are reasonable.

The hon. Lady said that the Bill does nothing to target the problem that she outlines, but I think it takes a series of steps that will support disabled renters to challenge unreasonable refusals without fear of retaliatory eviction—I am talking about the general overhaul of the tenancy system, which should provide them with more confidence in that area. In addition, when the new PRS landlord ombudsman is established, tenants may be able to make a complaint to it if they think that the landlord should have given permission for disability adaptations but has unreasonably refused to do so. That is another means of redress that will be introduced through the Bill.

Notwithstanding the hon. Lady’s point about a postcode lottery—we could rehearse for many hours the pressures on local authorities’ budgets—where a tenant has applied for a disabled facilities grant, local councils have the power to override the requirement for tenants to have the landlord’s permission to make adaptations, and to award the grant without permission if they believe that permission was withheld unreasonably. For those reasons, although I will reflect on the point that she made and although I sympathise with the intent, the new clause is unnecessary and I kindly ask her to withdraw it.

[Carla Denyer]

I will be honest: I am not convinced that the new clause is unnecessary, but I can do the maths so will not seek to divide the Committee. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 11

Rent controls

“(1) The Secretary of State must establish a body to be known as the Independent Living Rent Body within 12 months of the date of Royal Assent to this Act.

(2) The ‘proposed rent’ referred to in section 55(2) must be no more than an amount set by the Independent Living Rent Body.

(3) The amount referred to in subsection (2) must be calculated as a function of property size, quality, local incomes, location, and such other criteria as the Independent Living Rent Body sees fit.”—(Carla Denyer.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

--- Later in debate ---

I want to see us create a fair system of rent controls, carefully introduced with local flexibility, aimed at bringing down rents relative to incomes and acknowledging that that must come alongside a suite of policies to address the housing crisis more broadly, including a major increase in social housing and real support for community-led housing. Let us interrogate the assumptions on all sides of this issue, because we must take urgent action on affordability one way or another, and this is one proposal for how to do so.

[Matthew Pennycook]

The hon. Lady’s new clause, which she has set out clearly, seeks to require the Government to establish an independent body to set the maximum rent at which a landlord could advertise a property in writing, under clause 55, which I remind Committee members requires a landlord or a person acting on their behalf to state a specific and proposed rental amount in a written advertisement or offer for a proposed letting. Although I very much recognise the concerns in relation to rising rents generally and extortionate within-tenancy rent increases in particular—I do not think anyone on the Committee dismisses those concerns, particularly in parts of the country with hot rental markets, as referenced by my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster—I do not believe the approach proposed in the new clause is necessary or proportionate.

I understand from the hon. Member for Bristol Central that her new clause is intended to provoke debate, and I am more than happy to debate it. However, I must confess that when I was considering the new clause’s specific wording, I struggled somewhat to ascertain how the new independent body would operate. I think she has given us a bit more clarity on her thinking, but I am still a little unsure. I will therefore put the two options in my mind that it might reasonably take.

It could mean that every landlord and letting agent in England would need to engage with the body proposed by the hon. Lady to set a maximum starting rent for every property they seek to advertise on every occasion that they require a new tenant. I think that is what she was driving at when she said that it would have to take into account specific factors relating to each property. We are debating the specific measure rather than a general point but if that is the case, the costs of administrating such an arrangement, which would have to apply to the approximately 950,000 new lets that occur each year, would be likely to be enormous. In my view, it would almost certainly have an impact on the time that landlords and tenants take to agree a rental price.

If, as the hon. Member for Bristol Central touched on later in her remarks, the body would simply be required to set maximum rents on the basis of broad principles and therefore not account fully for variation in the market, it would in effect be overseeing a form of rent control. The Government believe that would impact negatively on tenants as well as landlords, as a result of reduced supply, discouraged investment and declining property sales, as I have set out in detail previously.

I gently push back on the hon. Lady’s assertion that I am just asserting such a point; I have given the Committee extensive references to some of the negative impacts of various forms of rent control in other countries. There are academic studies on countries such as Sweden and Germany, and from cities such as San Francisco and Ontario, which show that rent regulation can have those precise effects. I was in Rome at the G7 yesterday, discussing this very matter with the German Housing Minister, who acknowledged that while there are benefits to the system in Germany, it has had an impact on supply in places. It could have a detrimental impact on tenants if we introduce it into our system here.

I am more than happy to debate. I think we will debate the issue throughout the Bill’s remaining stages in this place, and I am sure it will be a source of debate in the other place and again when it returns to us. I do not want to test your patience or the Committee’s, Sir Roger, by repeating the long discussion we have already had about rent control. I simply reiterate that the Government are confident that the Bill strikes the right balance when it comes to addressing, in particular, unreasonable within-tenancy rent increases. We do not believe the establishment of a body along the lines that the hon. Lady proposes would be beneficial to tenants or landlords.

I have made the point, and will do again, that the legislation is not the Government’s only answer to affordability pressures in the private rented sector. The hon. Lady referenced the Government’s intention to deliver the biggest increase in social and affordable housing in a generation. I appreciate the urgency with which that needs to take place. She is more than welcome to clarify the point, but I hope she commends the additional £500 million of funding in the recent Budget, the top up to the affordable homes programme this year and the action we are taking on right-to-buys, giving local councils 100% retention of discounts from sales. There will be more to come, not least when we set out further Government investment in the spending review next year.

On the basis of all the points I have made, I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw new clause 11. I do not think it will be the last time we debate the matter as part of the Bill or more widely across the Parliament.

[Carla Denyer]

I certainly welcome additional funding for social housing, and I know that many local authorities do too, although I suspect that most if not all would also say that they need more than that. In terms of what exact model of rent controls we are talking about and how the independent living rent body works it out, I am deliberately not attached to exactly how to do that.

As I mentioned, there are 17 European countries that have some form of rent controls; they are all tailored to specific circumstances and some have worked better than others. My point is that we should not rule out an entire category of available tools on the basis of looking at a few examples that have not worked. I would rather we look at how we could make it work or, if not, at what the Government are going to do instead to tackle affordability in the private rented sector, given that the positive measures on social housing are unlikely to bring down rents in that sector by anything like the necessary amount.

As it is clear that the Minister will not support new clause 11, I suggest he should at least consider the merits of setting up a living rent commission to undertake work to inform evidence-based decision making about what we can do on the issue. When I was a Bristol city councillor, I was the co-proposer with a Labour councillor of commissioning a local version of that work to look at how rent controls could theoretically work in Bristol if the Government gave the council the necessary powers. We took that route specifically because we were aware that several options were available, so we first needed research on how it might work and how to avoid unintended consequences. I would love the Government to commission an equivalent study at a national level so that we can make informed decisions in future.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am afraid I cannot give the hon. Lady that commitment. She somewhat downplays the amount of thinking that has gone into this legislation by my officials, me and my colleagues as to the appropriate and necessary measures. We think the measures strike the right balance. This legislation is not the only intervention we are making on affordability pressures in the private rented sector. As I have said, I am more than happy to continue the debate with the hon. Lady in the remaining stages of the Bill.

[Carla Denyer]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.

[Matthew Pennycook]

May I take this opportunity, Sir Roger, to put on the record my thanks to you and to the other Chairs of the Bill Committee? Several Committee members are new to the process, and you and the other Chairs have done an incredibly effective job, with patience and generosity, of helping everyone to navigate the process.

I thank our exemplary Clerks, the Hansard Reporters, and the Doorkeepers for overseeing our proceedings. I also thank my officials and private office team, who have supported me and worked tirelessly over a short time to bring forward the Bill that we have debated in recent weeks.

Finally, I thank all hon. Members, including the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington and the hon. Member for Bristol Central for the spirited and constructive dialogue we have had. I value all the contributions and the challenges that have been made. I know that we are united in wanting to deliver the best legislation that we can for all our constituents.

As we end this stage of scrutiny and prepare for Report stage, I hope we can all agree that these important reforms will finally provide certainty for the sector and deliver meaningful change to millions of renters and landlords. I look forward to further engagement with all hon. Members as the Bill progresses through its remaining stages.

[David Simmonds]

I share the Minister’s sentiments. I will pay him the highest compliment that I can: at times, he could have been a Conservative in the way he addressed the issues that I raised. I add my thanks to the officials, as I know that the Minister’s swift responses would not have been possible without their diligent work behind the scenes; I am enormously grateful that issues have been dealt with in such detail. I also add my thanks to Committee members for their sensible and sound contributions. I am sure the debate will continue, but we have carried out an efficient piece of work.