Housing and Planning Bill (Third sitting)

Richard Bacon Excerpts

Tuesday 17th November 2015 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

In the two minutes left to us, Richard Bacon.

[Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)]

Q 245 Dr Ellis, you mentioned that it was a failed model, and I think many of us would agree with that. Do you think there is anything in current law or in the Bill that would prevent a local authority from taking a more strategic role—you mentioned Letchworth—in relation to land assembly and land capture?

Dr Hugh Ellis: There is not anything that prevents it. The key issue is more about whether it has been enabled. The biggest problem with compulsory purchase and land assembly, which clearly relates to compulsory purchase powers as a last resort, is the compensation code. The compensation code changed radically in 1961.

[Mr Bacon]

Q 246 Before you continue, I was not really asking about compulsory purchase. It is not against the law for local authorities to buy land, is it?

Dr Hugh Ellis: It is not against the law for them to buy land—

[Mr Bacon]

Q 247 And it is not against the law for them to buy agricultural land, is it?

Dr Hugh Ellis: No.

[Mr Bacon]

Q 248 And it is not against the law, having bought that land, to grant themselves planning permission on it, is it?

Dr Hugh Ellis: No, it is not.

[Mr Bacon]

Thank you.

Dr Hugh Ellis: I have to say that the issue, though, is the likelihood of that happening. The reason it has not happened over the last 40 or 50 years is—

[Mr Bacon]

Because we have a failed model. Yes, I know that already. We agree on that.

Dr Hugh Ellis: No; it is because the enabling powers that would allow local authorities to do that are not in place.

[Mr Bacon]

You have just said that it is not against the law.

[The Chair]

Order. Thank you very much, Dr Ellis. Sorry to interrupt you in mid-flow, but under the rules of the House we have to stop at precisely 10.15 am, when Big Ben chimes. I apologise for that. I thank all four of our witnesses for an extremely interesting and lively session, which I am sure has better informed the Committee. Thank you very much to the witnesses for coming, and for their evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Teresa Pearce]

Q 259 In your evidence you said, on the agreement between the National Housing Federation and the Government, that you feel the right to buy failed to follow the guidance in the Treasury’s green book. If they had followed the guidance, what would they have had to do?

Shaun Spiers: We have written to the Secretary of State, and we are meeting the Minister for Housing and Planning tomorrow to discuss this issue. As far as we know, there has been no rural briefing. To follow the guidance, the Government would have to think that rural areas are different. It is harder to build a home; the way homes come forward is different; wages are lower; house prices are higher; and 8% of the stock is affordable stock, compared with 20% in urban areas, so there really is a rural difference.

[Mr Bacon]

Q 260 Mr Spiers, you mentioned self-build. What scope do you think there is, particularly in rural areas that are provided for in chapter 2 of the Bill, to encourage local communities to do more self-build and custom house building? Does the CPRE see that as a problem, or do you welcome it?

Shaun Spiers: We think there are lots of questions about how it will work out in practice. The wording in the Bill is not sufficiently clear, and it is certainly not sufficiently clear to me. This is one of the areas on which I wish Matt Thomson, our head of planning, was with us. It would be useful if local authorities were required when allocating large sites to devote a proportion of the site to self and custom build housing, which would get the small and medium-sized enterprises going and provide better-quality housing.

[Mr Bacon]

Q 261 So in principle you support it.

Shaun Spiers: In principle, we are very keen on self and custom build housing, yes.

[Mr Bacon]

Q 262 You said that landowners are unwilling to gift land or give it at a discount unless they think it is protected in perpetuity. Do you think there is a role for landowners to work more closely with, or even create, mutual housing co-operatives or to work with community land trusts to create the in-perpetuity protection that you are talking about?

Shaun Spiers: Yes, I do. The in-perpetuity affordability is absolutely key. There is no limit to demand for housing in a rich Cotswold village. The difficulty is providing affordable housing.

[Mr Jackson]

Q 263 On the specific point about starter homes, as you know, Mr Spiers, for the past year or so the policy has been governed by ministerial fiat in respect of rural exception sites, which you mentioned earlier. Given that many people in villages want to try to retain familial links with their sons and daughters who perhaps do not have the wherewithal that they had to buy starter homes in villages, is it not better that you have some new homes within the framework of starter home policies within the village envelope? Most local planning authorities do not allow homes to be built in the open countryside; they allow them to be built only within the village envelope. It would formalise the situation in a more satisfactory way if there were more starter homes for local people in the village. In that respect, notwithstanding what you said about affordability, surely that is cumulatively a positive development.

Shaun Spiers: It may be, but it depends. You need to take it on a village-by-village basis. Villages should grow organically, and in some villages there may be a need for starter homes or even marker homes. We should not confuse starter homes with affordability. If somebody buys a starter home and rents it the next day, makes it into a holiday home or whatever, you are not meeting the crying need—