Oral Answers to Questions

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Monday 7th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Jessica Toale), the hon. Gentleman raises an important issue. The newly established Building Safety Regulator is crucial to upholding building safety standards, but we acknowledge that it is causing delays in handling applications, particularly for high-rise building projects on gateway 2, and there is gateway 3 after that. The funding we have announced will make a difference, but as I have said, we are working with the regulator to support its plan for improved delivery, including increasing caseworker capacity and guidance to the sector. We will continue to keep its performance under close review.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

8. Whether she plans to include more local people in discussions on development in their area.

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

18. What her policy is on the future role of planning committees in the planning process.

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

Local plans are the best way for communities to shape decisions about how to deliver the housing and wider development that their areas need. We want more people to be involved in the development of those local plans, and a key objective of our digital planning reforms is increased public engagement with them. Measures in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill will ensure planning committees play their proper role in scrutinising development without obstructing it, while maximising the use of experienced professional planners.

[Robbie Moore]

Across my constituency, local people are hugely frustrated at Labour-run Bradford council inundating our communities with hundreds of new houses, while not investing in local services and roads. Despite protests and valid concerns, the council has steamrollered through developments at every stage. Yet when vast numbers of local people in Silsden supported the development of a new farm shop on the periphery of the town—exactly the kind of new service that would promote local growth and deliver the new sustainable housing we need—Bradford council blocked the proposal. How will the Minister ensure that local councils listen to local people and are not dictating development plans to them?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman needed to make a political point to get his clip, but I am glad that we have Labour councils across the country that back development. Of course residents should have their say, but it is the role and responsibility of local authorities to make decisions about material considerations in planning applications, and I have no reason to think that the local authority in question has done anything other than that.

Construction Standards: New Build Homes

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Tuesday 25th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Michelle Welsh]

I thank the hon. Member for her intervention and I completely agree with her point, which my constituents have also raised with me. Homebuyers deserve to feel confident that their new home is safe and will not begin to crumble as soon as the key is in the door.

I will refer to the experience of one of my constituents with their new build home. Kelly and her husband Simon moved into their new home in Bilsthorpe in October 2024. They opted to go for a new build home because of their disabled son, thinking that a new build would be clean and that they would not have to spend much time adjusting it to meet their son’s needs.

Almost immediately, however, they realised that the high-standard and handcrafted home that they had been promised was not to be. They discovered numerous issues with the house. These included an incorrectly fitted and sized boiler cylinder, which left them without heating for three days; an improperly installed bath. which dropped and left gaps in the tiles; dirty tiles; damage to the flooring; and windows with scratches and stickers left on. I could go on. All of this was on top of the usual moving house stress. I know from my own experience that the days and weeks leading up to moving house are taken over by worry about what could go wrong. That a new home could contain even more nightmares is the last thing on someone’s mind.

When Kelly and Simon raised their issues with their constructors and builders, Harron Homes, they were met with more bad treatment. Through their complaints, my constituents learned that despite some of these issues being known to the site manager and sales executive, the home was in fact signed off. Harron Homes stated that there was “nothing to stop them” living in the property and that it was “happy” with the state of the home. I know everyone here will agree that the conditions my constituents faced in the house were certainly not good enough, and should have stopped them from being allowed to live in the property, especially with a disabled son.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

I feel for the hon. Member’s constituents. In Silsden, in my constituency of Keighley and Ilkley, Harron Homes carried out a development of 50 plus properties where my constituents faced exactly the same challenges and scenarios of snagging that she is quite rightly indicating. Alongside her, I reiterate my call to the likes of Harron Homes to, essentially, sort themselves out for the benefit of the constituents of us both.

[Michelle Welsh]

I agree completely with the hon. Gentleman.

When moving into a new home, a high quality and safe living environment is expected. We should not be expecting anyone to live in properties that do not meet these standards.

What has further shocked me about this case is the treatment of my constituents by Harron Homes. In an email, Kelly and Simon were described as “a pain” and they have had to wait weeks for repairs, and even just for a response. They deserve better, yet they are not alone in their experience.

Sara, a constituent in Hucknall, got in touch with me immediately following my election in July, regarding her ongoing case with Persimmon Homes. Like Kelly and Simon, Sara walked into her new home to find it completely below standards, with over 117 different faults and damages across the property. These included damaged flooring, poor insultation leading to cold spots, and plumbing issues. The company had even left my constituent with a broken patio door that had large gaps around the side, leaving her and her family fearing for their safety as the door could not be locked. This has understandably been extremely distressing for Sara and for her elderly mother. While Persimmon Homes has offered Sara some money to put towards the cost of repairs, it will not be enough to cover the full extent of the damages and faults in her home. Over 70 defects still remain. It is wrong that Sara was ever in this position, and that the construction standards of her home were not properly monitored. How many more families like Sara’s have to battle just to get the quality of home they originally paid for?

--- Later in debate ---

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh) for securing this important debate. As I said in my earlier intervention, it seems that we have both experienced the challenges of Harron Homes, and she has my full sympathy for having to deal with them. In my own constituency, I had the managing director come out—not that he wanted to, but I managed to get him there—and we had a meeting with residents to talk through some of the challenges. I share the concerns that she raised on behalf of her constituents, because it is not a good housing developer and it does not have its residents’ best interests at heart.

Construction standards are not just about bricks and mortar; they go into a home, and they go beyond that, into the sense of belonging that one feels when living in a good quality space. Construction standards are also about the process of planning, site security and development maintenance, all of which play a part in the experience of a resident who moves into a property.

I will use this opportunity to talk about some of the challenges that I have experienced in my constituency, particularly in Long Lee. In Redwood Close, a development is being undertaken by Accent Housing Group. I was called to look at the condition of an existing construction site about eight months ago. It is derelict because those involved in the construction went bust, but this is a site that is right in the heart of Long Lee and, dare I say it, has been causing a huge nuisance not only to those who wanted to move into the development and are now experiencing delays, but to those living in close proximity. I was invited along to see the access challenges to this particular site for myself. Neighbouring properties have had boundary walls, drainage and access all disturbed as the result of ongoing, existing construction. It is completely unacceptable.

I met again with the director for development, who came out on to the site with me around four months ago and reassured me that things would change at speed. I can tell hon. Members that nothing has changed at all, other than giving me further reassurance and then holding a residents meeting. They have told me that Esh Construction Ltd has now been appointed to complete the works, but those works are not due to start until mid-spring and construction of the site at Long Lee will not be completed until 2026.

All the while, those neighbours—who have had their property damaged, access hindered and boundary walls to their properties completely removed, allowing easy access to a dangerous site—have had to live with this right on their doorstep. It prompts the question: what has the local authority been doing throughout this whole process? Bradford council has not monitored the construction, nor has it carried out sufficient enforcement action; indeed, no enforcement action seems to have been taken at all. That is not a satisfactory outcome for the residents in Long Lee.

[John Lamont]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech and he is right to highlight the important role that local authorities have. However, speaking as a former commercial property lawyer, I think part of the problem is that, when buying a new home, the purchaser is forced to take a contract package that is geared in favour of the developers. When someone buys a second-hand home, there is a degree of negotiation between the parties, but when buying a brand-new home they take the pack from the developer and the remedies for the purchaser to deal with snagging items are very limited. Does he agree that that is part of the problem?

[Robbie Moore]

I absolutely agree, and that point has been made by the hon. Members for Sherwood Forest and for Ashfield (Lee Anderson): once someone has purchased a property or is tied into a contractual relationship, dealing with those snagging issues is a huge challenge. Where can they go from there? They have been taken out of the local authority’s remit to deal with it, because it has approved the planning application—having probably not carried out any enforcement action at all. That is the problem I observed with Bradford council’s lack of any attention to the challenges that we faced in Keighley, Ilkley and the wider area that I represent.

The problem is that, when someone is locked into a contractual relationship, or has even moved into a property, and there are snagging issues, they are effectively trapped and there is no real ability for any organisation with any weight to deal with that. Will the Minister address in her closing remarks what action the Government will now take to deal with cases where new developments have been constructed of a poor quality and concerns have been consistently raised?

It should not take a Member of Parliament to deal with those concerns—it seems that only housing developers only then suddenly realise they have to do something about them. What will the Government do to provide more weight to these concerns that are being raised, so that people with snagging issues can have reassurance that those problems will be sorted out?

I will conclude my comments by discussing the challenges associated with dealing with section 106 moneys. When planning applications have been approved, there is then effectively a negotiation that takes place between the developer and the local authority. I again have to rely on Bradford council negotiating the best deal for whatever that section 106 money is contributing to. Section 106 money is effectively a payment to deal with any mitigating factors that have been negatively imposed on our community through that development. I give the simple example: if those negotiations are not robust enough, that disadvantages the communities we represent. If that section 106 obligation is not spent or enacted within a reasonable time, our constituents are significantly disadvantaged as a result of a local authority—such as Labour-run Bradford council—not responding well enough. That disadvantages the communities we represent.

[Alison Bennett]

I have no knowledge about the workings of Bradford council, being a Sussex MP, but in my experience—and I should declare an interest in that I am a district councillor in Mid Sussex—local councils do not necessarily have the powers needed to move swift enforcement action. In section 106 negotiations, they do not necessarily have the deep pockets of the development sector to lawyer up and get those good deals. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?

[Robbie Moore]

I would politely push back on that. My understanding is that local authorities do have the powers available to them throughout the planning process to challenge the planning application put before them and to have a robust level of negotiation with the developer, resulting in a section 106 obligation being firmly and robustly constructed to deliver residents’ best interests. It is up to the local authority whether it chooses to utilise the powers awarded to it. In my case, I feel that Bradford council does not use any such powers in the first place.

[Mrs Russell]

In terms of the ability to do those things, the many years of cuts to local authority budgets—amounting to about 30% of local authority budgets over the last 14 years—are highly relevant. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is also a question here about directors’ duties? If those organisations go insolvent, no matter how great a 106 agreement is, that money cannot be recovered because the organisation no longer exists to recover it from. It should never have been possible for such a level of disruption to have happened to those residents, or for the people behind it to just go off in their Range Rovers.

[Robbie Moore]

The hon. Lady raises two points. I will take the second point on the director’s responsibility first. I absolutely agree that it should not be possible for a housing developer to move away from a scheme, leaving it unfinished, as happened in Long Lee, where Accent Housing effectively did not deliver, causing huge nuisance to local residents. That should not be an acceptable situation.

On the section 106 negotiations, the question comes down to this: when is the trigger point kicking in, and is it in the best interests of those residents? If it is not, why? I would argue strongly that, in the scenarios I have seen with Bradford council, those trigger points are not negotiated in the best interests of my residents. That local authority, back in 2021, threw its statutory obligation to Government and said that it was in sound financial health. I do not think that resource or Government cuts are an issue in relation to how it anticipates those negotiations going on; it is just pure lack of willingness to do its job. I conclude my remarks on that point, because I know that there are many other speakers who want to contribute.

[Christine Jardine (in the Chair)]

Order. We have to move on to the Front Bench contributions in 12 minutes, so please keep your remarks to five minutes each.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rushanara Ali]

I hope that I have already addressed some of those points in my remarks. We are of course looking closely at what further improvements can be made to building regulations.

We recognise that the industry needs access to materials that are safe and of sufficient quality. We are setting clear directions for growth for the housing sector, and expect suppliers to increase their capacity to meet demand. On the work in relation to the long-term housing strategy, this Government are focused on ensuring that there is quality alongside the quantity that is desperately needed to ensure that people have the housing they need. Homeowners of new builds must feel confident that their new home is safe. The points on that today have been well made. We know that we must take the necessary action to get the quality, as well as the quantity right.

This Government are absolutely committed to improving redress for home buyers when things go wrong. The regulatory framework ensures that the Government’s commitment to 1.5 million homes over the current Parliament can and must be achieved safely and sustainably. Ultimately, by emphasising quality and safety, the reforms pave the way for innovative construction practices and materials, attracting skilled labour and boosting productivity within the sector.

However, we recognise that, as we have heard in the debate today, things can go wrong for people when buying a new build home. That is why we will bring into force measures to introduce a new homes ombudsman scheme, which developers will be required to join. It will have powers to investigate complaints and make determinations.

[Robbie Moore]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Rushanara Ali]

I want to address the points that have been made—including the hon. Gentleman’s points, if he will let me continue.

The ombudsman will have powers to investigate complaints, to make determinations, including requiring compensation to be paid, and to help to set expectations of scheme members around standards of conduct and standards of quality of work. We will also have powers to issue or approve a code of practice. That will make it quicker and easier for home buyers of new builds to gain redress when things go wrong and help our wider objectives to bring up standards in the sector.

The introduction of the new future homes standard represents a considerable improvement in energy efficiency and standards for new homes. From 2025, new homes will be future-proofed with low-carbon heating and high levels of energy efficiency. These homes will be zero-carbon ready, meaning that no further work will be needed to ensure that they have zero carbon emissions as the electricity grid continues to decarbonise.

My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs Russell) mentioned her local plan. Due to the Secretary of State’s quasi-judicial role in the planning system, I am unable to comment on the details of that specific local plan. However, this Government are committed to the plan-making system. Bringing local councils and their communities together to agree their future plans is the right way to plan for the growth and environmental enhancement that our country needs.

I will respond to a number of points that hon. Members made; if I do not address all the points that were made in the debate, we can follow up in writing. I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper) and for Mansfield (Steve Yemm), to the hon. Members for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) and for Ashfield (Lee Anderson), and to my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs Russell) for raising a number of issues, including what more we can do around planning. We will look at the points that have been raised.

On the point made about disability, we will set out our policies on accessible new build housing shortly. The Government expect local authorities to plan for and deliver the housing and infrastructure that their communities need. The national planning policy framework, which was revised in December 2024, promotes mixed use sites, which can include housing designed for specific groups. That means that councils must consider the needs of disabled people and older people when planning new homes, and reflect that in their local plan.

I am conscious that I need to leave a bit of time for my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest to sum up. Points were made about water efficiency, and about drainage and waste disposal, which approved document H addresses. However, I am happy to write to hon. Members about the points that were raised that I have not been able to address today.

I am grateful for this debate and for the really constructive contributions to it from all Members, including the Front-Bench speakers, on this very important issue, which affects all of us in different ways in our constituencies, and I am determined to make sure that we work together to address it.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Robbie Moore Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 24th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

There are so many points to address in the Bill, but I will keep my remarks to just a few. I have grave concerns that the Government’s agreeable aim of freeing up our planning system will be dragged further by this Bill into the bog of planning delay and indecision.

There has been a lot of talk about whether the Bill will afford special protections for peatland on sites of special scientific interest, but I have looked at the detail and have concerns that, rather than leading to better protections for peatland areas, the Bill does the opposite. I will start my contribution by explaining why that is such a huge issue.

Take Walshaw moor, which borders my constituency, just next to the Worth valley in my beautiful part of West Yorkshire. Most importantly, it is an irreplaceable blanket bog peatland and carries protected status. It is a site of heavily protected bird species and ground-nesting birds. Recently, it has become the proposed site for what would be England’s largest onshore wind farm.

I am firmly opposed to that development. The disruption that a new wind farm would cause, through the constructions of 65 turbines—each taller than Blackpool tower—would be devasting to the blanket bog peatland. In fact, peat bogs across the UK store many times more carbon than our forests. Disturbing that peatland by constructing a wind farm on top of it could release many tonnes of carbon back into the atmosphere, directly contradicting the aim of the whole development—namely, to reduce carbon emissions. It is simply nonsensical to use Walshaw moor when the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has shown that the Government could achieve their targets for wind power without building on a single acre of protected peatland.

Let me come to the substance of the Bill as it relates to that development. The introduction of environmental development plans seems like a good idea: why shouldn’t developers pay some form of compensation for the environmental damage that their developments cause? As is always the case, however, things begin to unravel when we delve into the detail. What this change effectively amounts to is a mercenary approach to environmental protection that gives developers a much freer hand to negotiate their commitments. Indeed, local planning authorities will be given a much freer hand to take a looser approach in ensuring that developers do their fair bit for any environmental mitigation measures, particularly on protected sites, with the emphasis on a financial contribution.

Funding for restoration, either on site or indeed mitigated elsewhere, does not undo the damage caused by the development—be it to assets of scientific, natural or cultural value. In the case of a protected peatland such as Walshaw moor, that is exactly why the current proposed development is completely the wrong approach. The bogs themselves take millennia to reform, and sphagnum moss breaks down so slowly—by just 1 mm a year—to form peat. That is why the removal of the moratorium on onshore wind farms, which will allow more protected peatland to be built on, is the wrong approach from the Government. I cannot stress that enough. The Bill moves us from a dynamic in which we proactively protect what we value to one in which we barter what we can price up and pretend that value and price are the same.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Many aspects of the Bill will affect Scotland and make things much more difficult for local residents to oppose certain types of application, including those in my constituency who are fighting hard against a 94 km pylon route and battery storage plants. For me, democratic accountability should be at the heart of the planning process, but we seem to be moving towards a planning system that China would be proud of. Does he agree?

[Robbie Moore]

I absolutely agree. It is why the Government should be honest with the public that, far from strengthening environmental protections, the Bill creates a direct avenue for developers to pay to do environmental damage and get around otherwise more stringent protection laws.

[Matthew Pennycook]

The hon. Gentleman was here in the last Parliament. Does he remember that, in their attempt to undo the problem of nutrient neutrality, the previous Government sought to disapply the habitats regulations entirely? Is that the approach that he would prefer we take?

[Robbie Moore]

The Minister gets to the nub of the issue in that the nutrient neutrality issue caused an absolute stagnation in housing development. Indeed, the Government want to give Natural England even more powers, which will lead not only to increased stagnation in development but to frustration for those who want development to take place. Many Members from across the House have referred to the £100 million bat tunnel and the development of HS2. Natural England raised that issue, yet the Government want to give that very organisation even more powers, which will lead to increased stagnation in development.

The Government may bring forward a Bill to create an avenue for more development, but this Bill will not achieve that given the environmental protection measures. In the light of the Government’s removal of the moratorium on onshore wind farm development, coupled with the provisions in the Bill, I fear for our protected peatlands, not only in the beautiful uplands of West Yorkshire but right across the county.

Secondly, I fear that the Bill will not create the speedy planning system that the Government hope it will. By placing the design and formulation of environmental development plans in the hands of Natural England, the Government have ceded much of their control over them. As a single-issue public body, Natural England operates with a very different interpretation of “reasonable mitigations” than the rest of the public when it comes to preserving nature—I have already referred to the £100 million HS2bat tunnel.

As developers, Natural England and environmental campaigners barter over the details of environmental development plans and lodge legal challenges against them, how will the Secretary of State speed up our planning system, as she is forced to sit on the sidelines of those negotiations and watch Natural England take a lead? She has created a Bill that hands more power to Natural England, not less, and removes her ability to ensure that infrastructure can be delivered at speed. The Government must be honest and up front about what they value.

Finally, I would like to raise another issue in the Bill which, in my view, moves from naivety to the realm of malice. Compulsory purchase orders are highly controversial at the best of times, but in another blow to our rural communities the Government have decided that landowners should not be paid the value of their land in full.

[Chris Curtis]

I have an essay in front of me, in which it is argued that when the Government pay for new infrastructure, new roads or new developments in order to unlock new housing, the landowner

“has only to sit still and watch complacently his property multiplying in value, sometimes manifold, without either effort or contribution on his part.”

The argument is that the landowner should not get that profit with no effort. That is not from Trotsky; that is from Winston Churchill—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order.

[Robbie Moore]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is not fair at all for the state, be it national Government or our local authorities, to step in and not pay a landowner the market value they deserve. It is absolutely outrageous that this Government are introducing legislation, and changing section 12 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 on that basis. I do not think that that will create any efficiency within the planning system, and neither—dare I say it?—will it create any better means of money being spent by local authorities to deliver public services.

[Joy Morrissey]

We have seen with HS2 an example of planning authorities being taken over in a way that was not the traditional compulsory purchase process. HS2 has been allowed to take over properties, and not pay market value or even take possession. People are still waiting for compensation—their homes devastated, losing everything because of HS2’s ability to take over.

[Robbie Moore]

Let me get to the point—I know time is short, Madam Deputy Speaker. This Government’s approach in the Bill will not deliver planning done at speed, and it will not give the environmental protections that the Government are indicating to the wider public. It is not a good Bill.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Robbie Moore]

Does my right hon. Friend not realise that, in addition to placemaking, this is about making sure that infrastructure is at the heart of any new development, so that those who move into new places have GP practices, doctors surgeries and other facilities available to them?

[Wendy Morton]

My hon. Friend is absolutely spot on. Placemaking has to go hand in hand with infrastructure to make sure that there are additional school places and doctors surgeries to support the new homes. Employment and transport also matter. Otherwise, all we are doing is clogging up our transport systems and roads, and frustrating our local communities.

What is the Bill actually doing to address the need to create and foster new communities? That is what it should be doing, but I think it is really missing an opportunity. Few in this House would say that we do not need homes. Homes need to be part of communities, but in its current format, I fear that the Bill is a developer’s dream. It is also a neighbourhood nightmare, because it does nothing to create resilient and sustainable communities where individuals where families can grow up and thrive. That is what we should be seeking to address through big pieces of legislation like this. In short, there are some good things in the Bill, but it is a missed opportunity.

Local Government Finance

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

I rise to speak on behalf of my constituents across Keighley, Ilkley, Silsden, Craven, Worth Valley, and indeed my wider constituency area. I want to focus on a specific part of the Government’s announcement and the real frustration that all my constituents will now face, as a result of the Government’s decision, a 9.9% increase in their council tax. That comes as a result of a request put forward by our Labour Administration, which runs Bradford council, for a 15% increase in council tax. The Government have instead decided to instigate a 9.9% increase without any opportunity for a referendum to allow my constituents to choose whether they deem that to be reasonable. That is a choice by this Labour Government to impose a significant council tax increase on hard-working families, and not only in my constituency but across the wider Bradford district.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Robbie Moore]

I will give way to my neighbour, the hon. Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon). I hope that she will join me in opposing the council tax rise.

[Anna Dixon]

As the hon. Gentleman well knows, the cuts made to local government by the Conservatives when in government, through the grant, hit councils such as Bradford district and those mentioned by other hon. Members the hardest. That is why Bradford council was pushed into exceptional financing, has had to borrow and has had no choice but to put up council tax. Even with the council tax rise, it will still be below average. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with my assessment?

[Robbie Moore]

I am pleased to see that the hon. Member has been given her Labour Whips’ handout note. It is interesting that not once did I hear her oppose the Labour Government’s increase in council tax. Not only that, but she did not call out the mismanagement of the Labour-controlled authority. I am referring to the whopping £50 million of taxpayers’ money spent on the music venue Bradford Live. It was promised that it would open for district of culture—we have been awarded city of culture in Bradford district, but I refer to it as district of culture because that money should be benefiting all the constituents across the Bradford district—and was estimated to cost around £25 million, but Labour councillors signed off an expenditure of £50 million. It is not even open to the public yet, even though it is city of culture now.

[Anna Dixon]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Robbie Moore]

I will not give way, because I do not think the hon. Lady will agree with me and many of the constituents across the Bradford district in opposing a nearly 10% increase in council tax. I hope that her constituents are watching.

Not only that; it also comes down to the absolute mismanagement of children’s services by Bradford council. Let us not forget that the previous Conservative Government had to step in and take children’s services off Bradford council because multiple damning Ofsted reports indicated that it was not through the fault of those providing children’s services and the level of care needed on the ground that the services were failing; instead, the disconnect in management at the very top of Bradford council was so bad and was failing our children that the Government had to step in and set up a children’s trust, which I must say is now having benefits.

Is it not ironic that the Labour Government will refer to our 14 years, but in 2021 the Labour administration at Bradford council submitted, as part of its statutory duty, a report stating that the council was in a “sound financial position”? Yet now the council is claiming that it is £150 million in debt and seeking a council tax increase of 9.9%, despite having requested a 15% increase. What on earth are this Government doing to hold to account local authorities that are failing constituents in the delivery of services? Where on earth is that accountability?

Bradford Live is not the only place on which huge amounts of taxpayers’ money has been misspent; One City Park, in the centre of Bradford, is another such venue. Car parks are being knocked down. That is not the job of a local authority. We should be relying on private sector inward investment to pay for regeneration projects. The job of a local authority is to focus on providing statutory-based services, not dipping in and out of regeneration schemes, and failing, at the cost of my constituents. Now we see through our city of culture status, which does not seem to be benefiting many of my constituents, the council wanting to construct a fancy art piece in Centenary Project. Who on earth in the Keighley and Ilkley constituency is benefiting as a result of that work?

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

As ever, my hon. Friend is doing an excellent job of standing up for his constituents in Keighley and Ilkley, and exposing the failures of Labour-controlled Bradford council. In Scotland, this finance settlement will not affect my council, but my council is having to deal with a £265 million hit, along with all the other councils in Scotland, because of the national insurance rise imposed by the Labour Government. As well as all the mismanagement by Bradford council, does he agree that many local authorities across the UK are having to take money away from vital services to fund this tax hike by the Labour Government?

[Robbie Moore]

I absolutely agree. That point has been made not only by my hon. Friend, but by many Conservative Members. They say that the Government may, on the one hand, be passing down finance to local government, but they are, on the other hand, taking it away through the increase in employer national insurance contributions. This is a classic socialist policy: they are taking with one hand and telling councils how to spend it with the other.

Not only are my constituents going to be exposed to an increase of just about 10% in council tax, without the opportunity for a referendum to decide, but they are experiencing vast cuts to local services. We have had two household waste and recycling centres close in my constituency. The council is selling off assets. There are assets that have not yet been protected, despite the warm words coming from our Labour local authority. Assets such as the Ilkley lido, Keighley market and shops are now being considered for disposal, creating added worry to many of the occupants of those shops that the council own.

We have seen parking charges rise in villages such as Addingham, which means that the shops, which need those people to buy their products and to benefit their local economy, are now facing detrimental impact. Where does the issue of fairness kick in? In my constituency, the local council, which has increased council tax, spend that hard-earned money on a huge amount of mismanaged projects, wastage projects and projects that are not even open.

I submitted a freedom of information request to find out whether my constituents were getting a fair level of spending in the constituency. I asked the local authority how much had been spent on highways in my constituency over a two-year period. There are five constituencies across the Bradford district, so one would expect the figure to be about 20%, but it was about 7% on average over the two-year period. No wonder the state of potholes in my constituency is far worse than in the inner-city centre of Bradford. How can I justify backing any increase in council tax when the spending is so dire?

I want to come back to the issue of accountability. The last chief executive of Bradford council, Kersten England, held that post for a long period, and oversaw the mismanagement of finance and the diabolical handling of children’s services before the last Conservative Government stepped in, but—jobs for the boys—what is she doing now? She is chairing city of culture. What an absolute disgrace, in terms of who is being held accountable by the Government.

Let me quote some of the concerns that constituents have raised with me about council tax being raised by 9.9%. One said, “I will be 70 next year, and I am still having to continue to work to make ends meet.” Another said, “I am disabled and now, as a result of this council tax hike, will have to use my own savings to look after myself.” Another said, “I am a single mother with three children and I simply can’t afford this.” Another said, “I didn’t ask the council to throw money at a concert venue that is not open”—and therefore not benefiting my constituents—“yet they have done that and are expecting me to pay the price.” Another said, “It’s difficult to see why I would like to live through my retirement, having to spend this much more.” The list goes on.

There is only one long-term solution, and I will be interested to see what the Government have to say about it. I have long been campaigning, along with the former Member of Parliament for Shipley, Philip Davies, to pull our two constituencies out of Bradford council and create our own unitary authority away from the mismanagement of Bradford city.

[Anna Dixon]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Robbie Moore]

I give way to the hon. Member for Shipley.

[Anna Dixon]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, he and my predecessor put the idea of a breakaway council to his own Government, who rejected it as a complete non-starter. Let us work together across Bradford for the benefit of all our constituents.

[Robbie Moore]

I would be interested to hear what the hon. Lady’s constituents say. She has quoted the previous Administration completely wrongly, because they were absolutely behind the campaign to split the two constituencies apart. Indeed, I had many a meeting with the boundary commission. The challenge is that we have to get consent from the local authority, and we have a Labour-controlled authority that will not go anywhere near this campaign. Why? Because they know that my constituents are effectively the cash cow for the rest of Bradford. We are the dominant contributor to council tax and business rates, which feed city centre projects in the centre of Bradford.

I would like to understand the current Government’s position on my campaign to pull my constituency and Shipley—I believe I speak on behalf of many Shipley constituents—away from Bradford council so that we can have our own unitary authority, spend our own council tax and business rates in our own area, ensure that our local priorities are indeed prioritised, and leave Bradford city to make its decisions. I would be interested to hear what the Minister has to say on that, because that is the only way of achieving a long-term solution for my constituents across Keighley, Ilkley, Silsden, Worth Valley and the wider constituency that I represent.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

How on earth does one follow that? I just wish that the hon. Gentleman had spoken up so we could all hear him. He made points about councils raising council tax, selling assets and cutting services. Does he believe that has happened to Bradford in isolation? Does he believe that his is the only council that has looked at its services and budget and said, “This is tough”? What he actually described is eight years of Conservative rule in Stoke-on-Trent, where council tax went up in eight years out of eight, town halls were closed and put up in fire sales, children’s services were on the brink, and a record number of children were in care. What he has described is a fate that every council faced, and the predominant reason is that his party in government took the scissors to the Budget, slashed the services we all had and decided that they knew better. He may make a fiery speech in this place for social media clips, but perhaps he needs to—

[Robbie Moore]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Gareth Snell]

No, I will not give way. We have heard plenty from the hon. Gentleman over the last several minutes. He needs to think less about detaching his constituency from Bradford and more about reattaching himself to the reality of the situation that he put us all in.

I welcome the fact that Stoke-on-Trent city council has received £8 million through the recovery grant, and I have listened with great interest particularly to the hon. Members for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) and for Woking (Mr Forster) about the impact on the rural services delivery grant. I go back to the point I have raised before: we have to move ourselves away from this confected game of Top Trumps that the Conservatives wanted us to have—that deprivation in Stoke-on-Trent is somehow in competition with the needs of rural communities. The Government’s trajectory—with the fair funding review, and a look at how and why we end up with the funding settlements we have—will take us towards that place. I know that it will not be immediate, and I fully accept that there are always winners and losers in everything, but my city is one of the five poorest cities in the country.

Ninety per cent of homes in my city are band A. Every time we raise council tax by 4.99%, it raises less proportionally than when my neighbouring district council authorities and the county council raise it by 4.99%. Not only are we not getting the benefit of having band B through to band E; we are also seeing the difference of what is paid in neighbouring authorities grow every year. That is simply unfair—a system that nobody would design in that particular way.

I was first elected to a council in 2010. In fact, the Minister was the peer mentor appointed to my council by the LGA. I suppose that is why I am here and not running a council. We were shown the “jaws of doom” graph demonstrating just how challenging financing was going to be over the next decade, and the predictions that my party made then have turned out to be true. Had the last Government frozen in cash terms alone—no uprates, no decreases—the amount of money we were receiving in 2010 and kept it at that rate until 2024, we would have had £411 million to spend on various projects. Instead, we lost that money. We then had this perverse idea that suddenly we had to start bidding to get some of it back through a levelling-up fund.

If we had had £411 million over those 10 years, the economic regeneration of my towns and city centres would have happened. We would not have had to come cap in hand to a Government to ask for capital funding to build a car park or a new hotel. We simply would have done the things that we needed to do over time in a way that fitted with the other projects we were seeking to deliver. We did not have that; instead, we got levelling up, which in my city was basically a car park, which now costs the council more money than it raises because of where it is and how many people use it.

We should learn from those lessons. I welcome every penny given to my city by every Department. The disabled facilities grant money announced by the Department of Health and Social Care is helpful, but the council administers that to keep people safe in their homes so they do not end up in A&E. We could look at how we join up public spending, in Total Place based way, in order to drive those efficiencies and productivity gains that will make the system of public sector provision much better.

When we look at the funding for local government, I urge the Minister as part of the next phase to think about how we stop the shuffling of wooden dollars. As my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (Shaun Davies) said, it is local authorities that provide the youth clubs that stop young people going into crime and antisocial behaviour, which then costs much more through the criminal justice system later on. It is local authorities that do the checks on houses to make sure that they are safe and decent, so that people do not end up in A&E because they have lived in cold, damp houses. It is local authorities that make sure that the restaurants we go to meet the food hygiene standards that we want, and that the products we buy are being checked by trading standards. Those services keep us safe and well, and prevent much greater public sector costs further on, so how we fund the public sector, with a Total Place approach, has to be part of the Government’s thinking.

Let me end my short contribution to the debate with this. We in Staffordshire today received the letter that the Minister sent about reorganisation and devolution. Reorganisation in Staffordshire could be a long, drawn-out process because basically no one can agree on anything, and we all pretend we like each other but the secret is that we do not. The comments from council leaders and other Staffordshire MPs about Stoke-on-Trent have been appalling. We are a lovely place and want to work with everybody. We will undoubtedly end up in some form of North Staffordshire combined authority that makes sense logically, economically, geographically and socially—it is where people live, work, and enjoy themselves.

When the Minister invites new proposals from local authorities and there is an appetite for them but one or two councils are holding out—perhaps because some people are more interested in protecting their jobs as leaders than in protecting the jobs of the people we represent—I urge him to move at pace and make it quite clear that we will not wait for them. My constituents deserve the same level of investment that goes into the west midlands, east midlands, Manchester and Liverpool combined authority regions. Without it, we will get further left behind. My constituency is, as I said, the fifth poorest in England. I do not want to be standing here after the next election saying that my constituency is still the fifth poorest in England. I hope that, with this Government, we can make sure that it is not.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Rushanara Ali)]

It is my pleasure to close this debate. I thank Members from all parts of the House for their important contributions. I also pay tribute to the dedicated public servants working in local government across the country for everything they do to deliver for their communities by providing essential local services, protecting the most vulnerable in our society and helping lay the foundations for a good life for working people. They are doing that with great resilience in the face of significant challenges over 14 years of chaos, under-investment and decline.

Turning the page on the many challenges we have inherited will not be easy, but the settlement we have discussed today, as the Minister for Local Government and English Devolution, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon) has said, is a significant step towards rebuilding local government as we rebuild Britain.

Public service is our collective duty, and we are grateful to those who contributed to the consultation on the provisional settlement and to the Members who made representations. Their input is vital, because strong, empowered local government is central to our plan for change and to delivering the higher growth and higher living standards that every community deserves. This is the change and national renewal that this Labour Government were elected to deliver, and we will achieve that by getting local government back on its feet and working with us in the spirit of true partnership.

We are fundamentally resetting the relationship between central and local government by delivering the greatest transfer of power from Whitehall to our communities in a generation through our landmark English devolution White Paper. Crucially, we are fixing the foundations of local government, starting with the broken funding system that has left many councils of all stripes in crisis. The final settlement does what is needed: it provides a 6.8% cash terms increase in councils’ core spending power, bringing total spending for the sector to more than £69 billion for 2025-26, as my hon. Friend the Minister stated. With the settlement and the Budget taken together delivering more than £5 billion of new funding for local services over and above council tax income, we are ending the wasteful and costly bidding wars for funding pots that local councils have had to endure and moving towards secure multi-year financial settlements. We are providing more money for social care, increased funding for special educational needs and disabilities and alternative provision, and a £600 million recovery grant to support councils with the greatest need. We are responding to the drivers of cost that we know are putting authorities under huge pressure. It is clear that there is much more to do, but this settlement marks a turning point for local government after years of neglect and failure.

Many hon. Members have raised important questions about the impact on local authorities in their constituencies. My hon. Friend the Minister addressed many points during the debate, but I will respond to some others. As the distinguished Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, the hon. Member for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) will know, the National Audit Office’s 2021 report stated that core spending power was 26% lower in 2021 than it had been in 2010. Investment in local authorities has been reduced in recent years. Turning that around will require time.

The opening remarks from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), beggared belief. It is as if we did not have 14 years of Conservative government; as if within the space of seven years we can fix the mess that they left behind, with record cuts and record levels of under-investment. We will not take lectures from a Government who consistently failed local government up and down the country and decimated public services. That is the mess that we have inherited and are working hard to fix. We will work cross-party where people are serious about tackling the root causes, but we will not tolerate hypocrisy and the complete denial of the failure of the past 14 years. That is the mess that we are trying to correct.

In rural areas, investment has gone up by 6%; in urban areas 7%—

[Robbie Moore]

Will the Minister give way?

[Rushanara Ali]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will listen. The Minister tried to respond to his comments but he was not interested in the answers, so he will sit down and listen to my closing remarks. I want to respond to hon. Members across the House who have taken these issues very seriously.

This Government have already invested £3.7 billion in social care. We have recognised the need for investment in response to the rise in national insurance contributions —up by £515 million, as my hon. Friend the Minister pointed out. We have invested £1 billion in SEND and £600 million in the recovery fund. That is a snapshot of the investment that we are putting in. Local government and local services were starved of much-needed support under the last Government. That is what we are trying to correct.

[Rushanara Ali]

The shadow Minister has had his chance to make his points. It is my turn to sum up, and I want to address the points that have been made.

[Robbie Moore]

Will the Minister give way?

[Rushanara Ali]

The hon. Member had his chance to make his point. He should have taken the opportunity to hear the response from the Minister.

On the points about rural funding raised by the shadow Minister and other Members, this Government are absolutely committed to tackling the issues that matter to rural communities. As I said, places with significant rural populations will receive an average increase of almost 6% in core spending power next year, which is a real-terms increase. No council will see a reduction.

My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) raised a number of important points on temporary accommodation and SEND funding, among other things. The final settlement for the new children’s social care prevention grant is worth £270 million. She works tirelessly on her Committee to raise many issues, including homelessness and rough sleeping. This Government have already increased the investment to tackle homelessness and rough sleeping by £233 million, taking the total funding to nearly £1 billion.

My hon. Friend also raised the important matter of the local housing allowance. This Government are focused on increasing the availability of housing and tackling the long-term under-investment in house building, which is why we are determined to ensure we build 1.5 million high-quality homes. We have also invested £500 million in the affordable homes programme, because we recognise that there has been chronic under-investment in social and affordable home building and in the provision of housing over the past 14 years.

The hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster) raised a number of points on social care, which I have addressed, as well as on national insurance. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) raised important points about investment in SEND, which I have also addressed.

The Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, the hon. Member for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), made a very thoughtful and considered speech. I have addressed a number of the points he made, including on the rural services delivery grant. He also made a very important point about local audits; it is a scandal that a number of local authorities have not been able to provide the appropriate audits. My hon. Friend the Local Government Minister is working closely with the local authorities to ensure that that happens. It is, sadly, another legacy that we have inherited, but we are determined to work with colleagues, including the hon. and learned Member—my apologies, the hon. Member for North Cotswolds. He is not a KC, although he does have great expertise in his work. We will work together to tackle these issues—we are having to address them, and we are determined to do so.

My hon. Friend the Member for Telford (Shaun Davies) also raised issues around social care, which is a massive challenge that we are determined to tackle in the coming years. We are already investing funding into social care and supporting local authorities that have been struggling.

The hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) raised a number of points, including about home-to-school transport. We are aware that home-to-school transport costs are increasing significantly, in large part due to the pressures in the SEND system, and we are committed to addressing those challenges. The hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns) raised a number of really important points. The consultation on the multi-year settlement ends on 12 February, and I will welcome her and other hon. Members making their contributions and views heard as part of that consultation.

[Robbie Moore]

Will the Minister give way?

[Rushanara Ali]

No.

We are very serious about working with colleagues both in Parliament and in local areas to tackle these very serious challenges, which local authorities need us to address after 14 years of under-investment.

[Rushanara Ali]

I am concluding my speech. The shadow Minister has had his chance.

[Robbie Moore]

Will the Minister give way?

[Rushanara Ali]

The hon. Member took the opportunity to make a speech. I am sure he will get his clicks on Facebook and Twitter, so he does not need to continue in that vein.

Responsibilities of Housing Developers

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Wednesday 11th December 2024 Westminster Hall

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the responsibilities of housing developers.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I am pleased to have secured this debate on housing developers and the challenges that my constituents face around the multiple housing developments that are currently taking place in our area.

Housing developers have a huge impact on local communities and our national potential. We are all acutely aware of the challenge of our national housing supply. It is vital to supply the right houses in the right places and to the right people, and without developers that would not be possible, but new housing also has a huge impact on local people. Done poorly, new developments can completely change the existing settlement. They can reduce access to local services and make it harder for a child to secure a school place. They may also make it more difficult to get a doctor’s appointment, or they may add to traffic congestion. Those practical effects make a huge difference to people’s lives. For towns such as Silsden in my constituency, a perfect storm of planning regulations can change the character of the local area.

From a town of a few hundred properties, Silsden has grown by hundreds of houses in just 10 years and looks set to grow even further. Given the huge power that local developers have in both urban and rural communities in areas like mine right across Keighley and Ilkley, it is vital that we regulate them and ensure that they act responsibly. We must not forget that developers are businesses and must rightly consider their profitability first, but it is beholden on this place and local councils to ensure that the desire to make a profit does not come at the expense of local people.

I want to talk through some of the challenges that my constituents face when developments take place. I will start with early consultation. It is vital, when new housing schemes are developed and initially thought through by a developer, that consultation with local people takes place before a planning application is submitted.

Since I became an MP in 2019, Silsden has seen Persimmon, Harron Homes, Countryside Homes, Barratt Homes, the Lindum group, Newett Homes and Skipton Properties all developing houses. Those multiple developments took place in one town. It is right for the local authority to look at the masterplanning associated with the whole town when looking at the collective impact and the level of services provided, and therefore work out any negative consequences of those individual developments.

The planning system currently struggles to take separate developments properly into account when consulting with the public. Proper early engagement is vital. Unfortunately, we are not seeing that in my constituency.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

My hon. Friend speaks well about the challenges in Keighley and Ilkley. On the point about consultation, residents in my area might not object to the location of a development, but they are concerned about the impact on doctors and schools. When those concerns are raised with the developer, it pushes back and says that that is not its problem, but rather a matter for the local authority and the Scottish Government. Does my hon. Friend agree that that balance needs to be changed? Developers should take greater cognisance of the impact that their developments will have on services, working with the local authority to address those concerns as part of the consultation stage.

[Robbie Moore]

My hon. Friend’s excellent intervention gets to the nub of the point that I want to make. When multiple applications or developments are coming down the pipeline, they must all be considered duly and properly by the local authority. Bradford council, the unitary authority for my area, does not do that, which is incredibly frustrating because in order to work out the negative consequences, or indeed the positive impacts, that multiple developments will have on a community, those issues all have to be considered in the round. Residents need to feel that infrastructure and services are being properly considered.

That brings me on to a point that I had planned to make later about section 106 money and community infrastructure money. All too often, a local authority awards planning consent and then enters into a negotiation with the developer to agree the section 106 moneys that must then be paid to the local community, via the local authority, to mitigate any negative effects of the development. Unfortunately, in my constituency Bradford council is not taking a sufficiently robust negotiating position with the developer to extract as much financial benefit as possible for the local community so that that money can be spent in places like Silsden, Keighley and Ilkley and properly set against any negative impacts of the development.

I will give an example. With the development on Occupation Lane on the outskirts of Keighley, it was agreed that Barratt Homes would put in play facilities for children of all ages, up to the early teens. But what did we see when the development was complete? We saw play facilities that were more suitable for one or two-year-olds. The developer did the very bare minimum, which was obviously not what the residents expected when they purchased the homes. I could give other examples.

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)]

Many of these planning issues hark back to the Eric Pickles reforms, which the hon. Gentleman will remember all too well. One issue that I find in Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes is that when it comes to section 106 funding, the power lies with the developers: they have much more negotiating strength. They do not want things like social homes as part of their developments, because they think that they will impact on the profits that the hon. Gentleman says are so important to securing the developments in the first place. Does he think that we need to regulate to ensure that the section 106 funding goes to the areas it was intended for, and ensure that local authorities are properly supported to acquire the expertise that they need to work against these developers?

--- Later in debate ---

[Robbie Moore]

The hon. Member makes an excellent point. The reality is that section 106 money should be spent within a closely defined community area to mitigate any negative impacts resulting from the development. Unfortunately, we are not seeing that in my constituency.

Bradford council, which is Labour-controlled, has the power to hold developers to account so that they ringfence money for the specific communities in which it should be spent. My worry is that the local authority is not spending that money in Silsden or Keighley; it is taking it back to Bradford city and spending it within the city heartlands, rather than allowing my constituents to benefit from it. That is a real challenge.

I would like a specific response from the Minister on how we can make sure that we hold the developers, and indeed the local authorities that have these powers, to account in order to ensure that section 106 money and community ownership money are spent in the communities where they should be spent.

My next point is about on-site conditions when a development takes place. Unfortunately, in my constituency I have far too often seen new developments—I will give the examples of Harron Homes in Silsden and Accent Properties in Long Lee just outside Keighley—where the quality of the build has been so poor that I, as the local MP, have had to chase the developer on snagging-related issues. Indeed, there have even been challenges with highways or drainage. A Long Lee resident contacted me to say that their property, which bordered on the development, had been negatively impacted by the work of Accent Homes, because the developers had not taken proper access provisions or proper boundary-related issues into account. That resulted in huge holes appearing in the gardens of neighbouring properties. Those properties had nothing to do with the development taking place, but they were still negatively impacted.

This should not be happening. Conditions of build should be properly assessed, and the developers should be held to account by the local authority through the enforcement powers available to it. Again, I fear that Bradford council is not being robust enough, when it has awarded planning consent for a build to take place, in going on to hold the developers to account throughout the build process. I have repeatedly raised that issue since becoming the Member of Parliament for Keighley and Ilkley.

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

This is a timely debate, because I have just written to Solihull council about the Arden Triangle in my constituency and the lack of sufficient detail around the masterplan that is being put forward and considered tomorrow. Does my hon. Friend agree with me about this? One of the points I raised was that developers need to give consideration to infrastructure such as GP surgeries, but also to the road network, so that it can deal with the increase in housing.

[Robbie Moore]

Absolutely; my hon. Friend makes an excellent intervention. All too often, we see little pockets of development taking place on the outskirts of relatively small towns, without due consideration of the wider challenges with traffic congestion on highways, schools, doctors’ surgeries and indeed the retail offering. Crikey, how many huge developments do we now see taking place where no thought is given even to having a local corner shop within easy access of the residents? Masterplanning and properly considering the impact of these developments on communities such as mine are vital.

That brings me to the next issue, which is that when a development has gone through the planning consent process and been built, and residents start moving in and to reside in the development, there is a challenge around how the site is maintained. I will use the example of the Miller Homes development in Eastburn, which is just next to Silsden and Steeton in my constituency. Miller Homes had completed the development, and then all residents were expected to pay a levy charge to a maintenance company, for the maintenance company to then use that money to instruct a contractor that would carry out any maintenance of the grassed areas or hedging within the development. What we were finding was that a resident had no control, necessarily, over how much levy they were paying that maintenance company, but neither did they have any control over the quality of the work being undertaken or over how regularly grass was being cut or hedges were being maintained. The system was not working.

I have had many meetings with residents on the issue. I have written to Miller Homes; I have also written to the management company dealing with the matter, because I feel that the situation is geared up for it to be able to make too much profit, and the quality of the service delivered for residents in Eastburn is so much less sufficient. In effect, those who have contacted me are trapped: they are paying for a service that they are not receiving and they cannot escape the situation without moving entirely. That cannot be fair. Better regulation of maintenance levy money for carrying out works on the ground and having a proper quality of work being carried out need to be looked at.

As I have said many times in this place, local people are not opposed to new housing, but they want guarantees that services and infrastructure will be upgraded to accommodate the new influx of people. We should be encouraging our housing sector to see the benefits of extra engagement and extra investment in order to open up public support so that more developments are able to take place further down the line. We must also convene developments and developers that work collaboratively with communities, so we can ensure that local communities are getting what they want. Based on the ambitious targets that the new Labour Government have released for increasing the number of houses and on their willingness, effectively, not to take into account local consideration and local consultation, I fear that there will be a dramatically negative impact on many small communities.

I will give a further example. In the village of Addingham in my constituency, people went through a very long process of negotiating their neighbourhood plan. They came to the conclusion that over the next 15 years Addingham would be able to accept about 75 new homes being constructed. Bradford council, which is Labour-controlled, comes along and effectively says, “No, no: we are going to ignore what you have spent the last God knows how many years developing, and say that another 181 new houses in Addingham would be far more appropriate.” That goes against all the work that the local community had done and against any need assessment that had been properly established for that community to grow. I urge the Government to ensure that they always take into account local need and local assessments, as well as the negative impacts on local communities.

[Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)]

I would like to make two quick points. Constituents of mine who live in the Brockhill area have been waiting 20 years for roads and areas of grass to be adopted, for upkeep discussions to happen and agreements to be made. That has happened under both blue and red local administrations, so I do not think this is a party issue. This is about a system that has been failing residents for a very long time.

Secondly, at the last election the Labour party proposed 1.5 million houses, but the hon. Member will remember that his party’s manifesto proposed 1.6 million houses. When we are talking about building houses that people need, we should also have honest discussions about the fact that homes will need to be built.

[Robbie Moore]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, but he started off by saying, “I’m not going to make this political,” and then went on to make a very political point.

I secured this debate to raise the concerns that residents have been raising. I robustly say to this new Labour Administration that communities like mine in Keighley, Silsden, Addingham and Ilkley, across the Worth valley, are fed up of having housing development after housing development approved by our Labour-controlled local authority without any due consideration of the negative impacts on our communities and infrastructure. There will be impacts, for instance, on our community’s ability to get a doctor’s appointment and on the development of our proper road infrastructure. This is political if Labour’s ambitions are to effectively get rid of the green belt and open up the grey belt when there is no due consideration of the local impacts that that will have.

My constituents and people across the country will want to hear from the Minister what plans the Government have to address the concerns that I have raised. The public must have confidence in the housing process. Otherwise, they will resist new developments, and quite rightly so. If the Government are truly ambitious in their plans to build new homes, they must tackle the issues that I have raised before the impacts are exacerbated and have negative consequences on, I suspect, most of the constituencies of hon. Members speaking in today’s debate.

It concerns me deeply that the rhetoric from the Government now seems to be that we need to loosen the housing and planning systems even further, yet we have heard no comments so far from the Government that address the existing concerns about the current system and the services and infrastructure being put in place. As I said, no one can object to the right houses for the right people in the right places—that is why local consideration is so important. If we want to achieve that, we must ensure that our developers behave responsibly and do not damage the vital link of trust between them and the public. Towns like Silsden in my constituency, villages like Long Lee and, indeed, the whole of the housing market rely on it.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Rushanara Ali)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I congratulate the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) on securing this debate and on his introductory speech. He made important points about the importance of consultation, the responsibilities of housing developers and the need for quality service provision, community infrastructure and a range of other issues. Those are important points that we can all relate to from our own constituencies.

Other Members raised the important issues of housing supply and the housing crisis. We can all agree about the need to address the housing shortage in our country. It was helpful to be reminded of the Conservative party’s manifesto commitment of 1.6 million, along with my party’s commitment of 1.5 million over the next five years. On this important agenda, there is much that we can agree on. It is vital that national Government, regional government, local government and, of course, developers, on which we rely to deliver good-quality, safe and secure housing fit for communities and our country, work closely in partnership. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity—the first since the developments of the 1950s—to provide the housing that our country desperately needs.

We are in the middle of the most acute of crises in living memory; I see that first hand in my work as homelessness Minister, given the pressures of the housing shortage in many parts of our country. For too long, too few homes have been built and even fewer have been affordable, putting the dream of home ownership out of the reach of too many. That is creating an intergenerational set of tensions. Today’s under-30s are less than half as likely to be homeowners as those of the same age in the 1990s. There were only 210,000 first-time buyers last year, and they were particularly concentrated in the younger generation. That is the lowest figure since the global financial crisis.

We have seen house prices rise during that period, too. I know that across parties we can agree that we need to ensure that the younger generation have the hope of home ownership, should they wish to be homeowners, and that those who want to live in other forms of housing can get access to good-quality, affordable accommodation, be that shared ownership or other types of accommodation. We have inherited a set of challenges that we must address. That requires serious work across parties, where possible. There are 123,000 households, including 150,000 children, in temporary accommodation, which affects communities and constituencies up and down the country. We have a shared responsibility to tackle those issues.

As for the points made on planning and local consultation, we take those very seriously. The suggested changes to the national policy and planning framework, which we consulted on this summer, are first steps to correcting some of the issues that have arisen. By strengthening the housing targets and allowing development on poor-quality grey belt land, we will get Britain building again to kick-start our mission for delivering those 1.5 million homes. We are clear that our mission cannot be at the expense of quality. The hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley and others have made important points, and although I will not be able to address them all, I will make sure that officials pick them up. Colleagues have raised a number of specific constituency cases, and I am happy to pick those up in writing as well.

[Robbie Moore]

I want to pick up on the point about the grey belt. I will use an example from my own constituency where we have challenges. The local authority is developing its local plan, but genuine concerns have been raised that where houses are being allocated, the need is not being identified—in other words, green belt or grey belt is being prioritised over brown-belt land. Could the Minister outline what conversations she is having with the likes of Bradford council, which is Labour-controlled, so that brownfield sites can be prioritised rather than green belt and greenfield, which has negative implications?

[Rushanara Ali]

I will come to that point, which picks up on the hon. Gentleman’s earlier point about consultation, proper partnership working and engagement. We very much want to see that partnership with local authorities and communities, and I will come to the points about planning requirements as well.

We have been in government for only just over five months, but I hope colleagues can see that we have hit the ground running on a number of agendas, including leasehold reform and decent homes, which have been mentioned. We recognise that there is an urgency and a backlog of issues that need to be addressed. I hope that we can work on those issues collectively, because our constituents desperately need us to bring improvements.

Since coming into government, we have taken immediate steps to support the rapid delivery of homes by launching the new homes accelerator and establishing the new towns taskforce. We believe that the generation of new towns will provide new opportunities for millions of people and unlock much-needed economic growth. The construction sector, for instance, will generate additional jobs for communities up and down the country. These are important opportunities for our country.

We have also secured investment through the investment summit, including £60 billion and £0.5 billion on housing specifically. We need to see that investment in housing in our country. The Government have also put a down payment on our commitment, announcing £5 billion towards a housing supply package for England over the next five years, including £0.5 billion for social and affordable housing schemes.

The hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley is absolutely right about developers. We need to ensure that developers fulfil their responsibility. He is very aware of safety, and other colleagues also raised that issue. The remediation action plan, following the recently published Grenfell phase 2 report, set out some of the issues relating to quality and safety. It is vital that the next wave of housing that is built is safe and secure. The legislative programme that will come with the remediation action plan and the response to phase 2 is critical to ensure that we address those issues.

More widely, it is vital that we do not compromise on the quality of housing when increasing the supply. We are mindful that we need to address both issues. The points about the contributions made by the community infrastructure levy and section 106 planning obligations are well made. In particular, section 106 delivers nearly half of all affordable homes per year. The hon. Gentleman made some important points about the need for local communities to benefit, which is crucial. He will be aware that local authorities have that strategic role. We have seen some great examples in different parts of the country—I have seen it in my own constituency—of how well that can work if communities are engaged and involved. I hope that happens with the hon. Gentleman’s local authority and with others, whether they are Labour or Conservative-controlled. We all want to see that benefit to our communities.

The hon. Gentleman raised a number of issues related to consultation. Local planning authorities are required to undertake local consultation as part of the process of preparing a plan for their local area, to comply with the specific requirements in regulations 18 and 19 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012. He will be aware, as will others, of the requirement to consult and involve communities, including the commitment to a statement of community involvement.

We are committed to the devolution agenda. Contrary to what the shadow Minister said earlier, that means giving more power to local communities, including devolved budgets, to empower local leaders and mayors to work strategically with national Government, in order to deliver on the housing agenda. The hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley also raised issues in relation to section 106, which I have already addressed.

My hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) made a point about 200 planning officers. The Government have already committed £46 million to boost the capacity and capability in local planning, which will be crucial in local areas.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robbie Moore]

As Members of Parliament, I often think that our role is to be both problem solvers and place makers. That is why today’s debate has been so important.

I thank hon. Members for their contributions. The common themes have been obvious: early consultation is really important, as well as addressing the challenges around multiple developments and their cumulative impact on wider communities. We also talked about section 106 and community ownership moneys and the importance of the quality of build when it comes to place making. It is right that we get the right homes built in the right locations, designed around the need that has been identified.

We have been joined by the farmers protesting outside Parliament, whose noise has been coming into the Chamber. The hon. Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) rightly said that he welcomed the John Deere orchestra. I only hope that all Government Members are listening to the reasons why those farmers are here today.

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

On behalf of right hon. and hon. Members, I thank the broadcasting and sound team for an excellent job this afternoon.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the responsibilities of housing developers.

Employment Rights Bill

Robbie Moore Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 21st October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

I congratulate those who have given their maiden speeches today and spoken with such passion for and about their communities.

There is much in the Bill that I support, and I support the sentiment behind it. I am sure there is common ground in wanting to improve conditions and rights for workers, but there is a balance to be struck, and I have grave concerns about some provisions in the Bill—those that increase burden and red tape on employers and on employees, and those that are a threat to and a drag on economic productivity.

My first concern is the unnecessary introduction of a new concept of statutory probation. As the law currently stands, workers get protections against things like unfair dismissal. Those long-standing principles have survived different Governments, and indeed survive in this Bill. The debate has been about when those rights are accrued—whether it is after two years of employment or one—and there has been a fluctuation. This Bill attempts to introduce those rights from day one, but then to row back on them by introducing a statutory probation period, during which, in the Deputy Prime Minister’s own words, there is only a “light touch” approach to unfair dismissal. It creates a new concept that is vague and unclear, and it will increase the glut of litigation in the employment tribunal. Indeed, it will need to do so to create case law so that employees and employers can understand what a “light touch” approach to unfair dismissal means.

My second concern is the increased burden on smaller employers. Indeed, that is contained in the Government’s own analysis, and much has been said about that, so I will turn to my third issue: specific burdens in specific sectors, such as social care. The Government’s own analysis says that the Bill will increase costs for employers, but employers in social care cannot bear any more cost. The Government have said they will bring forward reform of social care; that must come first, before this law is brought into force.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the crux of the issue is that the Bill is lacking in detail? The issues he is discussing have been identified and indeed referenced in the Government’s own economic analysis, and we cannot get into the detail of this debate without having that level of information on the face of the Bill.

[Joe Robertson]

I agree that the Bill lacks detail. It also contains a lot of powers that are intended to come about through secondary legislation. For example, we do not know how long that probation period will be, because it is not set out in the legislation.

Turning to the NHS, we understand that the Chancellor will increase the money to the NHS in the Budget but, as an employer, the NHS will have increased costs through this Bill. If national insurance contributions on employers are to be raised in the Budget, it will have that cost as well. That means there will be less money available to cut waiting lists. I urge the Government to delay this Bill, get the detail right and put some detail into it, and ensure that sectors such as health and social care get the support first so that, as employers, they can deal with the increased costs from this legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Timothy]

The Government could be doing something about the fact that nearly 22% of the workforce is economically inactive and a record number of men is leaving the labour market. They could be backing British business.

[Robbie Moore]

This again highlights the point that there is so much detail yet to be released into the public domain about this Bill. I highlighted this before. Does my hon. Friend agree that if we had that detail, we could provide more reassurance to the small and larger businesses dealing with the challenges he has mentioned?

[Nick Timothy]

My hon. Friend is exactly right; I agree.

The Government could be backing British business, not burdening it with all these new regulations. Instead, we have an Energy Secretary driving up energy prices, a Chancellor planning a jobs tax, increases to capital gains tax and the imposition of inheritance tax on small family businesses, and a Deputy Prime Minister reregulating the labour market at a cost to business of £5 billion, to pay back the unions who fund the Labour party. The Prime Minister promised us that his priority was “growth, growth, growth”, but like everything else he said before the election, he did not mean it, because the only three things that this Bill will bring are more costs, less investment and fewer jobs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Kenneth Stevenson) on his maiden speech. Knowing his constituency a little, I can guarantee that the weather is not the link between Airdrie and Rome. I congratulate him on taking his place in this House.

Today’s debate is deeply important, and it will have huge ramifications for businesses of all sizes across the country. Hiring new staff is a big moment for small businesses, like many in Keighley and Ilkley, and it comes with huge potential but also risk. That is why many businesses in my constituency have contacted me in advance of the introduction of this Bill to express their concerns about the proposals before us today.

At a time when we need to grow the economy, we do not need a Bill that the Federation of Small Businesses has described as

“rushed…clumsy, chaotic and poorly planned.”

It has to be noted that this Bill will have a disproportionately negative impact on smaller businesses compared with larger companies that have their own HR departments.

Simply put, Labour’s day one rights and other similar measures are worrying for many small businesses across the country. The Government have made this situation worse by adding clause after clause of clarification, exception, regulation and definition, in an attempt to micromanage every possible situation for businesses across the country. This has created a quagmire of regulatory jargon that small businesses will simply have to cope with, and they will not be able to cope. The fear of falling foul of these regulations has been made clear to me by many businesses in Keighley and Ilkley.

The Bill will also prevent the backbone of our economy from hiring staff, expanding and growing our economy. Even the Government’s own economic analysis stipulates that the risks are highest for workers with the weakest attachment to the labour market, such as low-paid workers, disabled workers and the youngest workers, who are still gaining the experience and skills they require.

[Rebecca Harris]

An SME in my constituency once found someone sleeping rough on its premises and offered them a job. Does my hon. Friend agree that, when this Bill is enacted, it is very unlikely that a business will go to such lengths to give someone that kind of break in future?

[Robbie Moore]

I absolutely agree. My hon. Friend highlights that this Bill will not give businesses the certainty and confidence to recruit individuals who need that little bit more experience to get into the job market. Indeed, the Government’s own analysis points to an unintended consequence:

“Where businesses cannot absorb the increase in labour costs, they may look to pass them onto workers by reducing expenditures that benefit workers (e.g. staff training) or scaling back future improvements to T&CS (e.g. wage growth).”

This is not a pro-growth Bill, and it is not even a pro-work Bill; it is a pro-union Bill. The Government have even said this themselves. Their plan to make work pay has referred to this Bill as an “Employment Rights Union Bill”. Perhaps that is because the Bill is chock full of changes to union regulation made by our previous Conservative Government—changes that were specifically designed to protect the public from the unscrupulous practices of the unions and their more militant members.

Minimum service provisions were introduced by the last Government specifically to protect the public from being caught in the crossfire between the unions and the Government—yet, by lifting those restrictions with this Bill, Labour is showing that it is more interested in appeasing its union bosses than in ensuring that minimum service is guaranteed throughout any dispute between the public sector and the Government.

[Nick Timothy]

Earlier, I asked the hon. Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) whether there are any business leaders who actually support the Bill. Is my hon. Friend aware of any?

[Robbie Moore]

I have spoken to and received correspondence from many businesses, both small and large, in my constituency, but not one gave the Bill their full backing. In fact, they raised concerns about the relationship between the employer and employee being tampered with by the Government.

One of the most unsurprising parts of the Bill is clause 48, in which the Government want to force union members to pay into the political fund of the union, unless they explicitly decide to opt out. No matter what views hon. Members may have about unions, this clause is simply not right; working people should not be paying into political funds without giving their prior consent, especially when that money ends up in the pockets of a political party. Having received over £29 million in donations from the unions, we know which political party that money will end up going to—the party in government; and all this from a self-proclaimed Government of supposed transparency. Every employment is different, every job is different and every circumstance is different, but this Bill fails to recognise that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Monday 16th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)]

6. What steps his Department is taking to protect green spaces.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)]

7. What steps his Department is taking to protect green spaces.

[Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)]

13. What steps his Department is taking to protect green spaces.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Maclean]

My hon. Friend will, I hope, understand that I cannot comment on that specific case or situation, but it is really important that local authorities make decisions according to their local plans, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State set out earlier. If local authorities have a plan in place, it allows them to set out where they would like to see development that benefits their natural environment take place.

In England, we have also set out that from January 2024 biodiversity net gain will apply to mitigate the impact of major development. That requires developers to deliver 10% biodiversity net gain.

[Robbie Moore]

In 10 days’ time Bradford Council is likely to give the green light to yet more houses to be built in Silsden on valuable green space. If approved, the additional 140 houses will follow many hundreds of houses currently being built in Silsden, and many more are awaiting planning approval. Silsden’s infrastructure simply cannot cope. Does the Minister agree that Bradford Council should prioritise Silsden’s infrastructure first, rather than seeing the area as a quick win for achieving its housing targets?

[Rachel Maclean]

My hon. Friend is completely right. As ever, he champions his constituents over the actions of Labour-run Bradford Council, which obviously has a detrimental impact on his constituent’s lives. Local authorities have an obligation to spend section 106 receipts in line with the purpose for which they were agreed, for exactly the reasons he gives. We are committed to introducing new measures through the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill that will give greater certainty to local communities about the infrastructure that will be delivered in their area.

Planning

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Thursday 26th January 2023 Westminster Hall

[Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) on securing this important debate. It is important because planning policy impacts on everyone, and everyone has a view on it, whether that is negative or positive. Generally, it impacts on everyone’s life.

I will pick up on some of the absolutely valid points made by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) about the fact that a lot of planning policy has to be community-driven. Sometimes, it has to be generated at the grassroots level, rather than top-down. As has been said, it is incredibly important that planning policy is community-led. It has to consider the environment and relate to the needs of what is required within a specific community. It is important that we develop houses that meet and enhance the health and wellbeing of the communities we all represent.

I take a keen interest in planning policy because I studied architecture at Newcastle University and, in my year in industry, worked for a great company up in Newcastle that was involved in master planning exercises for housing regeneration schemes. One of the schemes we got involved with was in a deprived area of Sunderland, Southwick, and looked at how we could enhance a community through the quality of build of houses being developed. Indeed, I remember when I was at university, I did my dissertation on Byker and how the built environment can support communities. That is absolutely what planning policy should be about.

There are a few issues I want to cover in my contribution. I will consider local plans and how we can ensure that the infrastructure we all like to talk about—whether that is roads, GPs, schools or parks—is supported and there to enhance people’s quality of life with regard to housing. I will also touch on affordable housing and what an industrial strategy looks like when we are talking about employment use, and I will finish by talking about telecom masts.

My constituency of Keighley and Ilkley is going through a review of its local plan. Our local planning authority, Bradford Council, is looking at the local plan and will be putting it out for its second consultation in the not-too-distant future—I have been informed that that will happen shortly. One of the inevitable challenges is the drive to increase housing numbers across the whole of the Bradford district, which contains many different settlements, including not only Bradford city itself, but Keighley and Ilkley, which as towns are very different from the city. The complexity lies in the different make-up of those settlements and where the need is in those settlement areas.

Through the first consultation on the local plan, it became clear that the local authority seems to have an incredible will almost to offload some of those housing numbers to the easy wins—the easy wins being most of the outlying areas in the greenfield or in green-belt areas where it might be easier to get those planning applications through at a later date. The local plans are being developed at the moment that will create the next 15-year housing strategy, which will, we hope, be adopted later this year.

The concerns I have raised constantly are that the plan does not focus enough on prioritising brownfield development. We must refocus on those brownfield sites. Yes, they are more complex to develop—they may have contamination issues, issues with highways, challenges from some of the old mill settlements and so on—when trying to create a clean slate to drive that private inward investment into some of those sites. However, that has to be looked at because, unless we actually have a brownfield-first priority, we run the risk of not only reducing the soul of a settlement where those brownfield site holes in a settlement have been identified, but not actually developing houses where that need is identified.

My concern is that, in several of the towns I represent, the housing numbers that have been proposed are dramatic. They are way over and above the need identified for those settlements. In some of the discussions I have been having with the local authority, I hear that it has allocated the housing numbers to those settlements based on the deliverability factor—that is, it knows it can deliver x houses in those settlements because can build it on greenfield or take green-belt land out of the green belt for housing, rather than having a proper focus on brownfield first.

I will give some examples. There is Silsden—I should declare an interest, because that is the town that I live in. It is in the middle of the constituency, and it has had a proposed increase in housing numbers of about 580. Silsden is a relatively small settlement that has grown and grown; as we speak, we have an application from Persimmon Homes for 140 houses, to which I have put in an objection. We have had a Barratt Homes development; we have had Countrywide looking at putting in a development; we have Linden Homes currently building on site; and Skipton Properties has recently built a housing development.

[Bob Seely]

My hon. Friend is making a great speech, and I thank him so much for being here. Is not one of the problems with these big property companies, apart from the fact that they land bank, that they are interested only in really big sites? Since the great crash 10 or 15 years ago, a lot of the medium-sized and smaller building companies have gone out of business. We need to motivate smaller companies, or find financial incentives for developing smaller sites in a way that is much more acceptable to smaller towns and villages. That is better than Persimmon Homes, which, apart from anything else, has a dreadful reputation for the quality of its build, just plonking down 100 homes here or 500 homes there, and almost taking over and swamping the village.

[Robbie Moore]

That is exactly the point that I want to come on to, because Silsden is being inundated with houses. A live application for 140 houses is being considered by Bradford Council. I am completely opposed to it, but it is one of about six planning applications made over a period of time, and some of those houses are still being built. The point is that there has not been a sensible conversation about the impact on infrastructure and, as my hon. Friend pointed out, the quality of the build.

The road infrastructure going through Silsden is not great at all. I drive through Silsden weekly, and the roads are tight and narrow. The pavements are not wide enough, let alone the roads. There are no conversations about the school, the GP services and the other facilities that the town needs in order to stay vibrant. Settlements sometimes need to grow organically; growth must be driven by the requirements of individual settlements. There sometimes needs to be a focus on brownfield sites first, or on development of niche, smaller sites, which could be grown at an organic speed and delivered in line with settlements’ need.

In Ilkley, the average house price is somewhere around £420,000. That is very high, but local plan proposals suggest that Ilkley needs to grow by another 314 houses. I am constantly pushing back, because the community and I need to see the requirement for Ilkley to grow by that number of houses over the next 14 years.

Just down the road, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), Burley in Wharfedale has grown hugely recently—by about 700 houses. The implications for the GP service are huge. It has been a real challenge to unlock money, whether through section 106 or the community infrastructure levy, to improve the infrastructure. I have been helping out my hon. Friend with that.

I will come on to the quality of the build, which my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight made a really good point about. I have mentioned Harron Homes in this Chamber before; the quality of its build has been shocking, and it is not great to say that. I will give another example. About 50 houses were built—again, in Silsden. Other Members from across West Yorkshire have made this point in this Chamber before. The site was finished, in the developer’s eyes, yet there were huge snagging issues. The road was not even sorted out; in fact, sewage from the site had to be disposed of by a lorry that came in and emptied the tank, because the connection with Yorkshire Water were not sorted out. How can we ensure more enforcement against property developers when build is not of the quality that residents, and we representatives, expect? What can the Government do to put more pressure on developers to enhance the quality of houses, and of the master planning of the community that is being developed?

That brings me to industrial strategy. Inevitably, when it comes to planning, everybody likes to talk about houses, because that is quite an emotive issue, but I agree with the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight made about the use of compulsory purchase powers. On North Street in Keighley, there are many empty buildings with fantastic architecture. How do we use compulsory purchase powers to unlock those sites, and force the owners to change them into housing, or get them into some sort of community use, so that they do not sit empty year after year? Those sites could be used by the town.

Dalton Mills is a fantastic building. It is an old mill—one of the biggest in Keighley—that has been redundant for many a year, although “Peaky Blinders” was filmed there. The quality of the site has deteriorated over many years, and last year there was a big fire— 100 firefighters and 21 fire engines came. The building unfortunately suffered a huge amount of fire damage, although the façades seem to be structurally sound. It is a unique site just outside the centre of Keighley, but we are unable to unlock it because the landowner seems aloof—we cannot get in touch with him. We cannot get traction with some of these key sites. How can we unlock them, in planning policy terms, using compulsory purchase powers?

Let me turn to the speed at which local authorities operate. In order to drive growth and job creation, we want light industrial units in appropriate places, but it takes too long to get the planning applications through the system and get those units built. I have been shown many examples in Keighley. About four years ago, a planning application was submitted to the local authority for eight or 10 light industrial units. It did not get any traction from the local authority until the early in the covid period. During the covid period, the units got built and occupied, and now those businesses are flourishing. The demand is there; we just need to increase the speed.

Of course we want to drive better connectivity, but telecom masts have to be in locations where they do not have an adverse impact on the beauty of a village, and they must not be too close to residential units. There needs to be a mechanism for putting pressure on organisations such as Clarke Telecom that drive some of the applications. We must ensure that they look at where the best sites are. I will give three examples.

Unfortunately, a telecoms mast was approved in Addingham. It has a huge impact; it does not look good on the drive into the village. There would most definitely have been a better site for it. Putting it elsewhere would not have affected connectivity. All the residents of Addingham are impacted when they drive into the village and see that ghastly telecoms mast. An applicant applied to put a telecom mast on a site in the middle of Ilkley that was not even part of the public highway; they just thought they could get away with it. They had to withdraw the scheme, which will now be reconsidered. I put a lot of pressure on them. There was an application for a mast on a roundabout in the heart of the beautiful village of East Morton. We want to drive connectivity, but we do not want random applications for masts all over the place, with applicants seeing what they can get away with. That is not acceptable.

We have covered loads of points. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight for securing this debate, because planning policy without doubt impacts all our constituents. Everyone is incredibly passionate about it.

The Government are absolutely going in the right direction, and I commend them for listening to the many concerns that I have raised about housing numbers. The key point that I want to reiterate before I close is that planning policy has to be driven by need. What we need, rather than local authorities aiming policy at quick wins, is to create housing where it is needed, and a “brownfield first” policy.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Lucy Frazer)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) on securing this debate on an incredibly important topic, which I know Members from across the House feel very strongly about. It touches all our constituents; indeed, it makes a significant difference to their daily lives. It is an issue that we have debated extensively in recent months, both in the main Chamber and outside it, and I am very pleased to have had a number of conversations with my hon. Friend and other colleagues who are here today, as well as with many other Members who are not present, in order to hear all their views and take them into account. I think that has left us with a much better Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, which will secure the futures of our constituencies in terms of building houses that people want, and in the right places.

It has been a pleasure to work with colleagues from across the House, and I think that what we now have is a system that is shaped around the interests of communities, whereby we will have beautiful designs in keeping with local styles and the character of an area, and developments and buildings that people want and welcome.

It is really important that we have local plans in place. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), talked about these plans and he quite rightly said that at the moment only 40% of areas have a local plan, which means that speculative developments are imposed on communities. What we seek to do through the Bill is to secure a significant culture change in our areas, so that people do not resist development but seek it and indeed want it because it brings benefits to their area. I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman said, namely, that we are damaging the system; in fact, we will enhance it.

Many Members talked about community buy-in, which is at the heart of our Bill. I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) got it absolutely when he said that it was important to retain our local communities, that we had vibrant communities across the country, that we had green spaces and that people recognised that these open areas were important. Indeed, they are essential to people across the country. He also quite rightly highlighted the issue that has developed in relation to the five-year land supply and the speculative development that has come from that.

All Government Members talked about community buy-in. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight talked about the bitter battles among communities and my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore) talked about the need for development to be community- led, which is at the heart of what we want to do at the moment.

Indeed, two words sum up what we want; they are “local consent”. If we want a planning process that can endure, communities must be at the heart of it. We must hear their voices; we must listen to what they say; they must be involved in the process; the plans need to be shorter; and the documents need to be more accessible. And at the same time as communities shape local plans, we are clear that communities will retain the right to comment on individual applications.

We want all of this to be done more in digital form, so that people can access plans and engage with them, including commenting on them. We want to harness social media and digital channels such as email, so that we can increase visibility of and access to plans, and that is what we are doing through the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill.

[Robbie Moore]

I just want to make clear my point about commenting on planning policy. It is really important, in terms of transparency, that people can see, as a planning application is lodged, what other people are commenting on. Does the Minister agree with me that it is frustrating that Bradford Council, my local authority, has decided to take the step of removing from public view any comments that the public make on a planning application? It will not allow members of the public to see those comments and is using GDPR, as the reason for doing so. Yet other local authorities enable all their residents to see all comments that are made on planning applications. I wonder whether the Minister might comment on that.

Levelling-up Fund Round 2

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Thursday 19th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Frazer]

As I mentioned earlier, as someone who grew up in Leeds, I understand how important that area is and how much more we can do. As I have also mentioned, we had £8 billion and were only able to allocate £2.1 billion in this round, but further funds are available, and round 3 will take place in due course.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)]

It was extremely disappointing that Keighley was not successful in its bid for additional levelling-up fund moneys, over and above the £33.6 million that had already been ringfenced for it through the towns fund. Following discussions with the Department, I understand that Bradford Council’s application for the fund was not detailed enough to meet the standard for a successful bid. That is reflected in the fact that none of the four Bradford seats was successful, and, of course, the council did not make an application in the first round. Will the Minister meet me to discuss the Keighley bid, and will she also ask her officials to write to Bradford Council as a matter of urgency to explain how it can significantly enhance the quality of its bids so that Keighley does not suffer as a result?

[Lucy Frazer]

Keighley has already received some feedback and we will of course provide more. We want to ensure that areas that deserve funding receive it, and that that is not scuppered by councils’ not making their bids as strong as possible.

Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Bill

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Friday 18th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)]

I also start by commending my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for bringing forward this important Bill. He has worked exceptionally hard, alongside other colleagues, on its legislative journey.

Of course, this Bill will do so much to address the problems surrounding supported housing. We have heard today that some exempt accommodation in this country is, quite frankly, in a shocking condition for residents and occupants. The Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee produced a report revealing some of the horrendous conditions faced by residents, and I am pleased that the Bill aims to address some of those issues, including sexual harassment and violence by landlords under threat of eviction. There have been cases where staff and landlords have threatened residents, sold drugs to residents and been complicit in antisocial behaviour. We have to get to a position where the Government and the state enable these situations to be addressed.

Colleagues on both sides of the House have highlighted the challenge of county lines. I represent a community in Keighley that is challenged by drug misuse and drug distribution via county lines, which filter into some of the accommodation provided through exempt housing. The report also discovered that neighbourhoods with a lot of exempt housing attracted other issues with antisocial behaviour, to do with crime, vermin and so on, and that organisations without any experience might target victims of domestic abuse and their children without offering other specialist help or a suitable and safe setting. That is why this piece of legislation is really important.

Given all the examples that have been cited, it is absolutely vital that this House pass this piece of legislation. We need to tighten up regulations in this sector and ensure that those things are not allowed to continue. Of course, it is important to note that the Government have taken some steps to try to resolve the problems regarding supported exempt accommodation. From October 2020 to September 2021, DLUHC invested £5.3 million in five pilots in five local authorities, testing interventions to drive up quality and value for money. In the areas in which those pilots were carried out, it was shown that authorities were able to drive up the quality of accommodation and support residents; value for money was also improved through enhanced scrutiny of housing benefit claims. Through the pilots, it was possible to prevent some £6.2 million from being paid in error, which again goes to show why this Bill is so important. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East said in his speech, we will be able to get better efficiency regarding taxpayers’ money, as well.

If the Bill is passed, as I hope it will be, it will create a supported housing advisory panel, which is a huge step forward in ensuring that the sector is better supported. That panel’s mandate will be to offer information and guidance on supported exempt accommodation, as well as on their provision for regulation. The panel must comprise a broad range of individuals from the registered social housing providers, local housing authorities, social services authorities and non-profit organisations—all there to support the aims of the Bill. To pick up on some of the points that have been made by my hon. Friends the Members for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson) and for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson), dealing with housing is all about looking at the wider things that are associated with it—it is also about health, social care and education. That is why the direction of the Bill is so important, in trying to deal with some of the challenges related to the conditions that currently exist in exempt housing that have already been identified by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities.

The Bill will hopefully ensure further regulation of the sector through its call for local housing strategies, placing a duty on local housing authorities to review supported exempt accommodation in their districts in light of the findings of a published supported housing strategy. That illustrates why it is so important that local authorities talk to one another and share best practice. We have seen that in other pieces of legislation—I am thinking of the private Member’s Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson), the Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles (Safeguarding and Road Safety) Act 2022, which dealt with taxi licensing. That Bill was a mechanism of ensuring better sharing of dialogue and datasets between local authorities, so that we can drive good practice. This Bill will help in that area, too.

One of the key things I am really pleased about is that the Bill will strengthen and broaden the definition of “homeless”, so that we can help more people who find themselves in dire straits. The Bill amends section 191 of the Housing Act 1996—which sets out the conditions under which someone can be treated as intentionally homeless—to establish that where someone leaves supported exempt accommodation for reasons related to the standard of accommodation, care, support or supervision provided and that accommodation does not meet the national supported housing standards, that person will not be able to be treated as intentionally homeless. That is important. As has been said, it is unfortunate that we do not have enough datasets covering a long period of time to drive forward some of the positive benefits of the Bill. I hope the Government will recognise the point that data collection is key.

As we have all heard today, supported exempt accommodation is in dire straits. It needs to be sorted out, and I am sure the Bill will drive things forward to ensure that the next steps greatly improve the quality of provision. That will help all our constituents, and I am proud to support the Bill.