Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Rachael Maskell and Stuart Andrew

Thursday 11th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Stuart Andrew]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight that important piece of work in Karen Carney’s review. I know that football authorities such as the FA, for example, are starting work in this area, but that is precisely why we will be introducing the implementation group, because we want to ensure that pressure is put on to do the work that is needed, and to do it quickly.

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

Labour has a programme for a new generation of youth hubs, because we know that our young people are struggling with mental health challenges, school, themselves and others, and some are being picked off by criminal gangs. In contrast with our programme, the YMCA has identified a 70% cut in funding since 2010 and a loss of 4,500 frontline youth workers. When will the Government invest in our young people and in a comprehensive youth service?

Short-term and Holiday-let Accommodation (Licensing) Bill

Debate between Rachael Maskell and Stuart Andrew

2nd reading
Friday 9th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Stuart Andrew]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that we need to have a measured and effective approach, and I will come on to that shortly.

[Rachael Maskell]

On the issue of the private rented sector, the reason why so many are flipping is the inequality within the tax system, where landlords can no longer gain tax benefit as a result of the improvements they make to their property. We clearly now have an inequitable situation. Does not the Minister agree that that is why it is so important to bring forward tighter regulation to license these properties?

[Stuart Andrew]

I do. There are many complex issues around this important point, and the hon. Lady highlights one of them. During my time as the Minister for Housing, I was speaking to colleagues across Government about various solutions we could come up with, and I hope to elaborate on that a bit more in a moment.

Our ambition has been and will continue to be to ensure that we sustainably reap the benefits of short-term lets and holiday lets, while protecting the interests of holidaymakers and local communities. The Government have recently taken a series of steps that we are confident will help us to achieve our ambition for the sector. The Government have recognised for some time now that there are significant concerns that need to be investigated further. That is why, in last year’s tourism recovery plan, we set out our intention to consider a tourist accommodation registration scheme in England. That forms part of the Government’s ambition to create a more innovative, resilient and data-driven tourism industry.

There is, unfortunately, a lack of information and data on the short-term lets market in England. That is why our first step was to carry out a call for evidence, which ran from 29 June to 21 September this year. We had two key aims for that call of evidence. Our first aim was to hear from a range of stakeholders, to help us to develop a fuller understanding of the current market. Our second aim was to use the data and information we gathered to develop policy options. To do that, we asked questions about the changes and growth that have been evident in the market, the benefits and the challenges of short-term lets and the impact of potential policy responses. In total, we received 4,000 responses from all manner of individuals and organisations located throughout the country. Those included hosts operating in the market, guest accommodation businesses, online platforms, enforcement agencies such as local authorities and representative bodies and groups.

That brings me on to the next steps we are taking to improve the short-term lets sector. The call for evidence highlighted that there is a case to introduce light-touch regulation in this currently unregulated sector. The Government are therefore introducing a registration scheme for short-term lets through an amendment to the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill tabled on Wednesday 7 December. There are a number of benefits to introducing a registration scheme. It will deliver much-needed data and evidence on short-term letting activity across England, providing transparency on the numbers and locations of short-term lets for local authorities, central Government and enforcement agencies. It will improve consistency and coherence in the application of statutory health and safety regulations. It will boost England’s reputation as a destination for visitors, and it will help to attract more international visitors by giving a visible assurance that we have a high-quality and safe guest accommodation offer for all. Finally, it will support local authorities where a high number of short-term lets are deemed to be impacting their local housing market.

Local authorities have highlighted the challenge of accurately assessing the scale of short-term lets in their areas, often having to rely on data from third party providers. As there are some questions over the reliability of that data, a registration scheme would provide local authorities with better information on short-term letting in their area. A consultation on the design of the scheme will be carried out next year before the summer recess. For those reasons, the registration scheme should be seen as a significant step in our policy approach to the short-term lets sector.

[Rachael Maskell]

Does the Minister realise that over that period, another 6,525 properties—29 a day—will flip over to become short-term holiday lets? Surely we need to get on with licensing now.

[Stuart Andrew]

I hope that I have indicated how seriously the Government take this issue, but it is right that we do this properly and make sure we get as much data as possible, so that we really know the position we are facing.

The registration scheme is an altogether different step from the licensing scheme put forward in the Bill. As the Government are already progressing with the registration scheme that I have outlined, I am afraid we cannot support the Bill. None the less, the Government recognise that a registration scheme alone will not address all the challenges that have been highlighted today, particularly in the case of housing. The Government are aware of calls for changes to the planning system. Currently, planning permission is not normally required when an existing house starts to be used as a short-term let. We therefore propose to consult next year on whether planning permission will more often be required when a house seeks to start to be used as a short-term let and for new short-term lets, especially in tourist hotspots.

Today’s debate has also touched upon concerns that landlords may be prioritising short-term letting activity instead of long-term tenancy agreements. This has limited the ability of local people to secure affordable private rented sector properties. The Government are also committed to giving private renters a better deal, with greater security of tenure and safer, higher-quality homes. On 16 June, we published our White Paper, “A Fairer Private Rented Sector” which sets out our plan to fundamentally reform the sector and level up housing quality in this country. Since then, we have also committed to banning section 21 no fault evictions to protect tenants.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Rachael Maskell and Stuart Andrew

Thursday 1st December 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Stuart Andrew)]

Clubs that are subject to the all-seater policy—such as the wonderful Leeds United—may now apply to offer licensed standing areas, provided that they observe stringent criteria set by the Sports Grounds Safety Authority. For instance, they must ensure that the density of spectators is no higher than it is in seated accommodation. I welcome the news that Leeds United wish to sign up for this opportunity, and I should be more than happy to meet my hon. Friend in the new year, after I have met the SGSA to discuss this very issue later in the month.

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

T6. Short-term holiday lets are taking over urban, rural and coastal communities, causing the housing crisis to escalate and undermining the hospitality sector. The consultation closed three months ago. On Friday, I will present a private Member’s Bill proposing the licensing of such short-term lets. Will the Secretary of State support that Bill to regulate the industry?

[Stuart Andrew]

As I think the hon. Lady will know, in my previous role I fully understood the issues and challenges involved in this. We have received 4,000 responses to the call for evidence, which we are currently looking at. We are also working on the issue with colleagues in the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. I recognise that we need to sort it out.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Fourth sitting)

Debate between Rachael Maskell and Stuart Andrew

Committee stage
Thursday 23rd June 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Stuart Andrew]

Q I thank you both for your time this afternoon. We know that protracted section 106 negotiations can sometimes result in a reduction in the amount of affordable housing from what was originally intended to be delivered. We are introducing the right to require, so we can get as much, if not almost all, of our ambition to achieve that. Are there any specific points you would like us to look at as we develop that side of the policy? More broadly, how do you see the proposals on access to information on land helping housing associations to look at opportunities to deliver more affordable housing?

Kate Henderson: Taking the second part first, transparency on land ownership is hugely welcome, as are the clauses in part 7 on compulsory purchase. I know this is not the same thing, but they are interlinked. Being able to access land at the right price to capture that land value is a really important mechanism for ensuring that we are able to deliver affordable housing. The best section 106 agreements do that because they understand the infrastructure need in a local area and those policies are in the local plan, so that when you go in for your planning application it is all costed in. I think the main principle of the infrastructure levy is that the cost of the levy is costed in so it can be factored into the price, which factors into what you are willing to pay for the land.

Land transparency is welcome, as is part 7 on compulsory purchase, regeneration and the enhanced role of Homes England, not just as a housing agency but as an agency involved in regeneration and place making.

Gavin Smart: I support much of what Kate says. I do not want to repeat her, but I have a couple of observations. Some of this is about the creation of a new planning system and some of it is about the resourcing of local authorities. Some of what characterises good section 106 negotiations is the ability to negotiate effectively. It is quite hard to design either a section 106 or a levy system in which developers may not come back, either legitimately or less legitimately, to argue that the situation has changed and needs to be looked at again. We have to accept that as a fact of life in these negotiations. It is not done until it is done.

I agree with Kate that land transparency is very helpful. Considering whether compensation needs to be paid in quite the same way as it has until now, and addressing hope value, is a very sensible proposition that we would support.

[Rachael Maskell]

Q In areas of high land value, how do we bring forward sites that are not built just for investment—Airbnb, asset homes and second homes—but are built to meet local need? What measures would you add to the Bill?

Gavin Smart: I do not know about adding measures to the Bill, but it is about the quality of local plans and the quality of local decision making. Going back to Kate’s point, it is about making sure we are operating on an objective assessment of need. We need to be sure that in our plans we are delivering the housing that is required for the whole community, rather than simply housing that can make the best return. In that sense, the planning system is something of an intervention to prevent what one might describe as a kind of market failure, which is that the housing market will not deliver the housing we need without being provided with a degree of direction. It is as much about what happens in implementation as what is actually in the Bill and the quality and strength of local plan-making behaviour.

Kate Henderson: There are already tools in the planning toolbox that enable local authorities to deliver different types of development that are right for their area. One example is rural exemption sites. I know your constituency is in York, so you are not necessarily rural, but our rural areas often have high land values and pressing affordability issues. The rural exemption policy enables affordable housing to be developed in perpetuity. A local landowner might be more likely to put forward a piece of land for affordable housing if they know it is going to stay in the community, for the community, so there are policies such as those that can be used. I agree with Gavin: it is really important that the local authority has a good evidence base of what is actually needed, so that when it is making decisions on schemes coming forward, there is an opportunity to argue for the social mix that it wants to see, including affordable housing.

I also think there is a role for different actors in the housing market: who is actually coming forward with proposals? What is the role of Homes England in terms of its land assembly role and its partnership role with local authorities, and how do we get HE more in the mix in its place-making role, as well?

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Third sitting)

Debate between Rachael Maskell and Stuart Andrew

Committee stage & Committee Debate - 3rd sitting
Thursday 23rd June 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Stuart Andrew]

Q My final question returns to the community infrastructure levy. We have said that we want to take a test-and-learn approach, trialling it with a number of authorities, so I welcome the fact that you want to engage in that process. Do you agree that planning authorities often spend a considerable amount of time in negotiation on CIL or section 106, and often find the negotiations going downwards in terms of investment for the local community? That further erodes trust in the process in respect of what will be delivered on the ground for communities. Will this legislation help to free up the time of some of the planners to do some of the more important strategic stuff? I will go to David first.

David Jackson: On replacing CIL with the infrastructure levy, the simplification of the infrastructure levy based on value is certainly advantageous. In our experience, we were very engaged in the preparation of CIL on behalf of the Home Builders Federation. We engaged with many local authorities on that basis, and it was indeed a very complex process, looking at viability and trying to project that over a period of time and for a range of development scenarios. That simplification is welcome.

I take a slightly different view on section 106. It goes without saying that where section 106 is engaged, we are dealing in large part with complex, difficult, challenging projects. We have to ensure that local communities have trust in the process and that it will deliver the outcomes they expect to see. Inevitably, there is an element of commercial negotiation, because viability can often be engaged where we have multiple demands on investment in a local community, so it is right that we go through that complex process. I think CIL helps in terms of taking—[Inaudible.] The complexity of section 106 is merely a reflection of the complexity of the projects we are dealing with and the wish on both sides—both the community and the developer—to ensure that the infrastructure that is required to make the project work is actually delivered.

Victoria Hills: We have been very clear that anything that comes in needs to not overcomplicate an already quite complicated system. As proposed, the infrastructure levies will all go through PINS—the Planning Inspectorate —which we think will add more delay and cost to the system. We are advocating for the new infrastructure levies to get directly agreed by local authorities with the Secretary of State or the Department, to take out some of what I think you are alluding to—the horse trading, the negotiation and all the rest of it. Then, there is one discussion between the directly elected authority and the Department, and that gets agreed. You can take months and significant cost out of the whole system by not running it through PINS.

Another important point, which I could not make earlier, is that it is really important to understand how, in simplifying the system, the new infrastructure levy will sit alongside other statutory requirements—not least biodiversity net gain and affordable housing—and how, in simplifying it, it will balance out those quite complex aspects. The requirement for affordable housing has always been the case, but biodiversity net gain was not a thing before.

At the moment, until we see the detail, we are not convinced that it will all be simplified. There are some important complexities to take on board.

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

Q In the light of the Government’s proposals and commitment to building 300,000 homes by 2025 and real revision of the planning process, do the witnesses believe that is deliverable? Do they believe we will see homes that are predominantly assets, investments, second homes and Airbnbs?

Victoria Hills: We have always been very clear that the way to deliver great places and great communities is through a robust local plan and framework where the local authority has the opportunity to set out their priorities, which could include some of the aspects you referred to. The elevation of the importance of the local plan in all this is welcome. The detail, which we do not yet have, is on to what extent local authorities will be able to carry on delivering priorities through policy, and to what extent they will get pulled out into the national framework.

We support the principle of the local plan being elevated. We recognise that it is the only way you can move ahead with delivering on agendas including net zero, affordable housing and well-designed, healthy homes. If you are going to have policies against second homes, that may well be something to prioritise in your local plan, or in national guidance—the detail is yet to be seen on that.

Whether or not it meets the housing numbers is still an area for debate. The Government are on the record saying that is very much the plan in action. We will be advocating for local authorities to be well resourced, without delay to the national framework, to enable them to get on with the business of producing local plans as quickly as possible, in order to provide certainty for local communities and the development sector, so that it can get on and start planning and then building. It really just relates to the earlier theme of resourcing.

However, there also needs to be no further delay. There is an urgent need to deliver more homes, as we know. The housing waiting list continues to rise, and more and more people are still desperate to have a place of their own. The need continues to grow, so it is important that we move forward quickly on any regulatory reform and that we move forward with a resourcing package—which surely must include bringing up the planning fees as well, to help to move those things forward as quickly as possible.

Tony Mulhall: I totally agree with Victoria’s point about the importance of having up-to-date local plans, and the important aspect in the Bill of being able to combine local authorities so that they better match their functional urban region or their socioeconomic hinterland. That is important because we are spending a lot of time and money squeezing the carbon out of our buildings, but there will not be much point in doing that if we have to drive miles to get to our jobs and schools. It is critical that we have a proper planning system linked with the standards of quality construction that will achieve climate change.

On the point as to whether the measures in the Bill will deliver the target of 300,000 houses per annum, the feedback that I get from our members is “No.”

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Debate between Rachael Maskell and Stuart Andrew

2nd reading
Wednesday 8th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Stuart Andrew]

The hon. Member knows that I cannot comment on individual plans. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) would be the first to apply for an urgent question asking me to explain why I prejudged a local plan. What I would say, in general terms, is that it is clear that local authorities can argue the constraints that they may have, and his local authority may be planning to do that; I do not know.

Let me move on, because I am conscious of time. I turn to second homes, because, if I did not, my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby), as well as my hon. Friends the Members for St Ives (Derek Thomas) and for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson) and others, would be rather angry with me. We have put provisions in the Bill to try to help on that, and I know that she wants us to go further. I have made a commitment to come down to the south-west to hold a series of roundtables and see the issues for myself. We will see what else can be done as we go through the Bill’s passage.

[Rachael Maskell]

In addition to second homes, we have the challenge of Airbnbs, which of course the Bill does not mention, and yet they are blighting our communities as they take out existing stock and dominate new stock that is being built. Will the Minister look again—it is urgent—to put an amendment into the Bill to address that serious issue?

[Stuart Andrew]

In fact, I had a meeting just this morning to talk about that very issue. I will report back in due course, if that is okay.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Rachael Maskell and Stuart Andrew

Monday 16th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Stuart Andrew]

I am grateful to the Chair of the Select Committee and for the reports that fed into many of the changes we have made. He is right to raise those issues. One issue communities see far too often, and the reason why they are sometimes opposed to development, is that they do not actually get what was promised at the beginning. I am really keen that, through the Bill, we give that power back to local communities and ensure neighbourhood plans are strengthened.

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

York is being overrun by investors hoovering up our new build by either leaving those properties empty or using them for Airbnb. That is causing the market to heat up, which is having a really disruptive impact and choking off opportunity for future buyers in my constituency. How will the Minister use his planning reforms to ensure we are not just building to numbers, but to local need?

[Stuart Andrew]

The hon. Lady is right. The reforms are about empowering local communities to develop local plans and engage with the development of those local plans to identify the housing needs of each area. She is right to raise the issue on second homes and Airbnb. As I said to her the other day in the meeting we had, I look forward to potentially hosting a roundtable with her and colleagues around North Yorkshire to address those very issues.